Replies

That's not true. The majority of threads I've read on FR are critisizing the fact that it hasn't been tested enough. The media is focusing on the religious concerns, but most people who oppose this aren't doing it on the sexual implications as much as they are the dangers of untested vaccines. Even the person you responded to talks about health concerns, in this thread. The OP does, too.

The nature of this vaccine IS sexual. But that's not where the majority of concern lies, though it is a big point. If the government can't push birth control on people, it shouldn't be able to push an anti-STD vaccine on people, though it does. Look at Hepatitis B. I'm still convinced that's why Merck is calling this anti-cancer, though it's not really a vaccine against cancer. There was so much of an outlash against the Hep. B vaccine, they probably don't want to go through it with this one. But that's what this is, another anti-STD vaccine. It's sexual in nature. It's emotional language to say, "You want girls to have cancer as punishment for sex," not logical language, by the way. It's making an assumption that paints someone who disagrees in a negative light. It happens all the time on FR, but it doesn't make it right.

It's not idiotic to be against this vaccine. It's concern for your children, either because you think there's not enough known about this vaccine yet, or because you think it's putting your children at sexual risk by misrepresenting the benefits of this to children. Most people I talk to don't realize how little protection this vaccine really gives, and think it's 100% effective against cervical cancer and HPV. It's a dangerous assumption and dangerous misrepresentation.

That's not true. The majority of threads I've read on FR are critisizing the fact that it hasn't been tested enough.

Okay. Now is that a cover for other concerns or not. Obviously, you are mostly concerned about the health aspects, you come across as thoughtful. But I think that if your views were more widespread, at least some people would criticize the person who claimed that Rick Perry had called all the girls in Texas wh--res.

If the government can't push birth control on people, it shouldn't be able to push an anti-STD vaccine on people,

Your comparison is not sound. Some people do want children (and don't want birth control), but I can't think of any individual who would want an STD.

though it does. Look at Hepatitis B.

I'm not sure that's right. But giving HPV-vaccines (after adequate testing) is right, since boys don't get it by having sex.

It's emotional language to say, "You want girls to have cancer as punishment for sex," not logical language, by the way.

Close to that. That's the impression I get. Especially people who claim that this encourages promiscuity. Apparantly, getting cancer should be a risk of having sex, otherwise, it encourages having many sexual relations.

or because you think it's putting your children at sexual risk by misrepresenting the benefits of this to children

That should not be a problem, since you're in a position to tell them the truth.