These waifs don't need a vaccine. They need morals. And parents to tell them not to have sex in middle school, lest they catch a nasty disease. Like genital warts, which are not prevented by the shots.
It is very troubling to me that when this vaccine is talked about, it is almost never mentioned that it is for a sexually transmitted disease.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
*************
I suspect that if I had a teenage daughter, I might have her vaccinated. To require vaccination by law, particularly at this young age, seems to me to be an unwarranted intrusion by government. Parents alone should have the right to make this decision.
Why is the young age at the time of vaccination so troubling to some? Is it a case of, "Why do today what I can put off until tomorrow?" Why put it off?
Strict enforcement of discipline using corporal punishment, not morals, needed in middle school.
So, how long has this vaccine been tested?
I thought I came across something saying five years. That is not long enough for me to feel comfortable giving to my 13 year old.
Uh...HPV and Genital warts are the same thing.Genital warts are caused by certain types of the human papilloma virus (HPV). The shots immunize the recipient against HPV and thus genital warts.
What these 12 year olds need is morals, counselling, and the shots.
Uhh, this is really stupid. It protects you from more then STD's, and even if you assume that they will wait, which would be nice, but it is impossible to know for sure, at least after they turn 18, and even at that, they can always be raped, as horrible as that might be, I'd rather not get an STD from it too.
This kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that makes social conservatives look like moonbats.
Yes they do need a vaccine, and they don't need someone to advocate that they get cancer. Who the hell died and made this guy the one who passes judgment on the morals of 12 year olds?
Some people just really p**s me off.
Sorry, that's not the right conclusion. The doctors are looking at the issue with dry amoral scientific detachment. The doctors understand that the potential for sexual behavior occurs with the onset of puberty. The vaccine has to be taken before a girl is sexually active. Therefore, the vaccine needs to be taken before the onset of puberty.
The doctors are not making a value judgement. They're making a risk assessment. If the vaccine is worthless after exposure to HPV, then the best time to give the vaccine would be before any chance of sexual activity. If there is the slightest risk that the girl is already sexually active, the vaccine is useless. So the doctors have selected a moment with the least amount of risk.
You're right when you see that there is no moral value at all attached to the decision. It's strictly a rational decision made to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. That doesn't negate the value or the need for morals; it just means that the doctor's job is to prevent and cure disease. The transmission of morals is the job of other institutions in our society - parents, family, churches.
These waifs don't need a vaccine. They need morals. And parents to tell them not to have sex in middle school, lest they catch a nasty disease. Like genital warts, which are not prevented by the shots.
We all need a moral foundation, preferably based on sound religious principles. Given a choice, I prefer both the vaccine and the moral foundation.
Imagine being an 11-year-old girl and going into a doctor's office to get a series of shots. The doctor and your parents tell you that there is a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cancer and kill you, but this shot will prevent that. I would think that most girls would focus on the other dangers presented by sexual activity, not see those shots as an invitation to fornicate.
However, I wouldn't want to look at my dying daughter and tell her that I chose not to give her the vaccine when she was young because I thought she'd be a slutty seventh grader. That would be more pain that I think I could bear.
And that it's not little virgin boys that transmit them.
Whatever! The notion that anyone would be against girls getting a vaccine that could prevent the scourge of cancer, is insane IMO.
If you want your child to have it then do it and my daughter will most likely get it if and when the time comes as part of her health but to sit back and want others to do my job is stupid ...thats all the article is saying but some on here want to tie em down and try that then fine but it wont work and some on here wanna be chicken littles and yell ooooooooooh the children ooooh the children..all that is needed is common sense..
I don't understand why it is not also recommended that boys get the shots. If you vaccinated both sexes, it seems to me you'd have a better chance of getting rid of (or at least greatly reducing) this disease in a generation or two.
Parents who think it's a good idea to vaccinate their little girls against sexually transmitted diseases can do it. No need for a mandate
See how easy common sense is?
More experimentation by drug companies on our population. How do we know that these drugs won't permanently damage these people. The drug companies are not concerned with curing you of anything just treatments.
They're trying to do this in Colorado,too--another conservative state. I would want my daughter to get this but I DON'T want the government forcing my daughter to get it--under the assumption that she will havve sex before marriage.
This is a whole lot like condoms in schools. We tacitly assume that our kids will start grooving well before marriage and so we try to "accomodate" their behavior. Condoms and HPV vaccines should be available--don't get me wrong--but they should be last restorts for those who don't follow the societal standard of abstinence.
The original post is wrong about it's going to cost us. If it becomes mandatory, and everybody gets it, then along with everybody who was vaccinated and wasn't at risk, everybody who was at risk also got vaccinated. So now, nobody gets cervical cancer, or next to nobody. Think what that has to do to medicare and medicaid costs. The upfront cost of the vaccine pales in contrast to the downstream cost of treatment, even though many are vaccinated and fewer end up getting the cancer and needing treatment.
The vaccine might, tragically, come too late for a few of the most unfortunate girls who run into the wrong man in some insecure location, or who make one mistake and it's one mistake too many, or who get mickey finned or whatever. But age 11 ought to cover pretty much everybody.
what about men? won't this prevent the infection of the virus in men? why not have hamilton test it out and all the members of congress try it first?