[keepitreal]

The political correctness of this nonsense is just unbelievable. Why should boys get vaccinated? They are not the ones getting cancer because of this. Furthermore, think of this in economic terms. A boy has less incentive to take a vaccine, because (almost) nothing can happen to him anyway. Then, girls might get hurt. Very politically correct, but idiotic (no disrespect).

-----

Your argument is ridiculous. If this is the public health crisis you tout it is, then boys who can be carriers and infect girls should also be vaccinated, so that they do not spread the virus. It takes two to spread a sexually transmitted disease. And your incentive argument is illogical. What incentive is there for children to have the Hep A vaccine if they are not in a place where Hep A is spread? Perhaps, since there is no incentive, Hep A vaccine should not be mandatory.

[LtdGovt]

If this is the public health crisis you tout it is, then boys who can be carriers and infect girls should also be vaccinated, so that they do not spread the virus.

It takes two to spread a STD, yes, but that also means that vaccinating one is enough to prevent the STD from being spread. Why do you insist on vaccinating the boys, political correctness?

And your incentive argument is illogical. What incentive is there for children to have the Hep A vaccine if they are not in a place where Hep A is spread? Perhaps, since there is no incentive, Hep A vaccine should not be mandatory.

Uhm, but there is an incentive for an HPV-vaccine, because girls can get cancer from HPV.