Replies

Pay no attention to the riffraff.

"How long will it be before they require this as part of immunization schedule? God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations. I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage."

Our stance is NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE.

Then you won't need ANY of these drugs for STD's and no side effects. Amazing how far just a little common sense will take you. Years ago it was standard advice and we didn't have the epidemic of STD's or HIV cases. Now that we chose to believe, "they'll do it anyway" and shove EXPLICIT sex at every opportunity - guess what? Kids are active at lower and lower ages. The emotional price of being used and tossed aside is also devastating - especially for females. Females are scarred emotionally by being someones "tissue".

Some will never get it! So ignore the ugly riffraff.

From a previous thread on this very issue - and with the same poster baiting and being ugly.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650591/posts

No one in the article or on this thread is advocating letting children die and not treating illness.

Look people have sex outside of marriage - people in marriages aren't honest about past (or present partners) things happen in life and you have to deal with it. HPV is a lifelong consequence - From a Fortune article "Gardasil is almost certain to be approved by the FDA, say analysts, who place the medicine's annual peak revenue potential in the $2 to $4 billion range. Those estimates assume states will make Gardasil mandatory. The shots are given three times over a six month period, and will cost anywhere between $300 and $500. The vaccine lasts for up {They aren't even sure how long it's going to last} to five years. Merck's strongest data point: Studies that show the vaccine to be 100 percent effective against strains of HPV, which are responsible for some 70 percent of cervical cancers. In the United States, 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,900 die from it, according the U.S. Centers for Disease Control."

What I do have a problem with is, advocating, much less mandating a vaccination for 8 and 9 year old girls that is effective at best for 5-7 years. If it's truly to prevent STD's then you allow for it later, but it shouldn't be mandatory. It's so bizarre, I see people all the time on this forum about feeding tubes ask who's paying for this? No thought at all about who pays for vaccinations. I have no problem with this vaccination being available (and informed consent), it's the mandatory part and the age that I think stinks. You innocoluate your own daughter - leave mine alone!

From the Fortune article about this "Fisher says mainstream parental opposition to Gardasil is easy to explain. "Parents are becoming more concerned about the shear number of vaccines kids are getting these days," she says. "In the 1980s, U.S. children got 23 doses of seven vaccines by age six. Today, they get 48 doses of 14 vaccines in the same period."

"And during the time that vaccines doses have doubled," she says, "there's been an increase in the number of children with autism, attention deficit and hyperactive disorder, learning disabilities, asthma, and diabetes, in which vaccines could be a contributing factor."

Fisher is strongly opposed to Merck's proposals to inoculate girls at age 9, which is six years before the average age of first sexual experience in the United States "It's just profit-making on the backs of 9-year-old girls," charges Fisher. The proposal has also drawn widely publicized ire from groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, both Christian conservative organizations generally opposed to anything they believe promotes premarital sex."