DON'T YOU JUDGE ME!!!

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage

Amen. I do wish people would use their brains for something besides keeping their skulls from collapsing from outside air pressure.

So what's the topic of today's show, Ace? Are you going to be talking about cervixes and vaginas (vaginii?) and all those other female parts you haven't come close to in a year?

Why would they even need to be told that that's what the shot protects them from?

The argument is the same as handing out condoms. It is utterly asinine to say that handing out condoms send a subtle message that encourages sex. You choose to have sex, the condom doesn't make you have sex. Well, oops, maybe it isn't so asinine.

It's not such a daft idea to say, "you know, maybe it should be up to the parent as to whether or not to vaccinate a teenager". Requiring the vaccine to be given seems to be mightily anti-freedom to me.

The argument is different if you can vaccinate as a young child, such as with polio vaccines and the like.

Come on, Ace. I know its Tuesday and all, but that's some loose shit. There's not one quote from a conservative group that is actually opposing it. There are insinuations that groups are opposing it, but its all just the nebulous 'conservatives' that are mentioned. Remember, the media doesn't care about details, just that if it sounds like it could be true, it probably is.

Ace, I'm disappointed in you. No single person is quoted in this article as being against this proceedure. Rather, the article points to "some conservatives" being against it. The only proof offered up is anecdotal evidence about calls from "concerned" parents and some doctors being worried that vacinations may send the wrong message.

There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.

Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned parents and organizations, officials said.

"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.

This article is nothing more than a hit piece on the Bush administration designed to play up to fears and prejudices about his appointment of Christians to positions of power. It was done without quoting a single person, administration or otherwise, stating an opposition to these mandatory vaccines.

I can't believe you bought this.

I'm with MH on this one. There are a few vague references to "Focus on the Family," but only because one of the people on the council deciding how the vaccine will be used to work for them. Not one actual group is quoted, or even named for that matter.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence offered for "opposition" of the kind in question was the 11% of pediatricians they interviewed who expressed the concern of encouraging unsafe sexual activities in minors.

Yeah, sorry Ace . . . you jumped the gun on this one.

Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.

Whoops. I suck.

Ok, so we've go ONE direct quote.

My greater point stands. It's a stretch to portray this as significant opposition.

If I decide I want to get me some cervical cancer, then Goddammit I'll get me some cervical cancer. And no mafukkin gumint is gonna be givin me no mafukkin shot to prevent it. You can have my cancer when you pry it from my dead cold cervix.

Actually, REAL loose shit. You need to read more than just some San Francisco newspaper article on this. Like, maybe the CDC for example? Google is your friend.

You'll see that, first, this vaccine is NOT claimed to prevent 100% of cervical cancers. At least 50%, maybe more, certainly nowhere near 100%. It's certainly not going to "virtually eliminate a form of cancer" as you put it. 100% efficacy refers to its stopping of HPV-16, NOT to the stopping of cervical cancer from other unrelated strains or from other causes. Even in the CDC's own studies, some women who received the vaccine developed precancerous lesions, just not from HPV-16.

Also, there are active studies underway on the effectiveness of this vaccine in men. HPV does not cause cervical cancer in men (duh) but (1) men can spread cervical cancer (2) HPV causes genital warts in men, no picnic, and (3) HPV is a leading cause of penile cancer. So there is serious talk, planning, and reason for using it on all our children, regardless of gender.

I'm not saying it shouldn't become part of our standard vaccine arsenal; it probably should. But, Ace, you're getting your "facts" from the San Fran Chronicle here.

Mark

It gives my inner libertarian the shivers, but I agree that the shots should be mandatory.

Glenn just posted about this and analogized to motorcycle helmets. So now he supports laws mandating the wearing of safety equipment? No nanny-state concerns there at all?

Doesn't he know there's a war on?

Nah. I'm not buying any, either. I'm hardly slow to make fun of social conservatives when they really deserve it, but this doesn't pass the smell test.

> Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.

So, over a decade, it will strike 100,000 in a female population of, what, 150,000,000? I wonder if the vaccine itself has harsh side effects for more than 1 in 1500 of the recipients.

I don't think any vaccine ought to be mandatory unless it halts the spread of a contagious disease. Also, there is no restriction on an adult getting vaccinated, is there?

Geez, do you think it would be okay if, barring society's legit concerns, I could just be the guy who decides what you stick into my kids?

Maybe Merck can get John Roberts as spokesperson:

"Cervical Cancer Vaccine: making sloppy seconds a little cleaner."

This story strikes me as fishy. Who could actually think that a vaccine for cancer promotes teen sex?

Mandatory? Why don't they trust us to do what makes sense? Must be liberals.

Actually Allah, the libertarian in me says 'No Mandatory Shots' period. Because I base it off of this concept.

How many people will NOT get one? Besides me, being a guy and all. Maybe .1% of the population who somehow find it morally reprehensible? So, .1% run the RISK of getting cervical cancer. There's no guarantee they'd get it anyway, and people like that probably are undersexed anyway.

Smoking causes cancer. If we're going to make a vaccine mandatory because it prevents cancer, I don't see why we couldn't outlaw tobacco for the same reason.

I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument, so if my logic is faulty, please let me know.

Personally, I am a great supporter of vaccines for contagious diseases. But as to other types of diseases, no way shd it be mandatory. And to the person who asked why do people have to be told what it is for, it's called informed consent and it's the law.

You guys are too much. You freak when someone suggests getting your male dog neutered but when it comes to human female reproductive parts you want mandatory.

Promiscous, non-monogamous sex spreads HPV, and thereby, cervical cancer. The statement, "all girls will eventually have sex," does not present an adequate case for mandatory administration of this vaccine, since merely, "having sex," does not cause the disease. The spread of the disease is behavioral in nature. It's not like measles or diphtheria, where every child is equally at risk (dependent on exposure).

No doubt, this vaccine, like all others, has potential side effects, which may outweigh its potential benefits. Making this vaccine mandatory seems a bit extreme, at least at this point.

Personally, I am a great supporter of vaccines for contagious diseases. But as to other types of diseases, no way shd it be mandatory.

It's an STD. It's contagious.

Sharp -- Good points, but do you really think the only people who'll end up not getting the shot are moral objectors? I bet quite a few will simply not know about it. I wouldn't mind that particularly if the disease wasn't contagious ... but it is. The ignorant aren't just hurting themselves here.

I keep thinking of kids with Christian Scientist parents. Every now and then you see a story about one of them dying from some easily treatable illness. If we have the means, why not zap this bug?

Needless to say, I agree that if the side effects prove nastier/more prevalent than the disease itself, all bets are off.

Allah wrote:

"It's an STD. It's contagious."

Not if you're not having sex, it isn't.

Excuse me. . . I'm going to go have a good cry now.

Sadly,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

So they also should,nt require that kids be shot full of RITALIN as well no reqired shots

Promiscous, non-monogamous sex spreads HPV, and thereby, cervical cancer.

Allah - Spend the money that would be used in enforcing people to take the shot and apply it to education. My rights won't be trampled (well, I'm not a dame, so moot point and all) and you should cover all your bases.

Actually, I take that back.

If you mean "It's mandatory that all children and their parents must be offered the vaccination", then we're cool. That covers your 'enlightening the stupid' problem while still allowing the choice.

After reviewing the links I've concluded that the first article could best be described as jumping the gun on the potential opposition to mandated vaccinations, but not outright hackery.

I'm somewhat conflicted on this issue. I just found out that my wife is pregnant this weekend, so I'm a potential parent. If I have a daughter, I'd want her to be protected from cervical cancer, but I'd also want to know a lot more about the vaccination before someone forced it on her.

What bothers me about the extreme abstinence crowd is the corner they paint themselves into with their slipperly slope mentality. Much like rabid pro-choicers with their support of partial birth abortion, they sometimes find themselves in specifically morally indefensible positions while advocating for their larger goals.

Not all birth control education is necessarily pro-sex. I think the abstinence crowd would be better served by advocating balanced and truthful sex education rather than simply opposing any mention of birth control.

My fear for my children is not that some teacher might tell them about condoms, but rather that some Planned Parenthood troll will try to pass off condom use as "safe sex" when it really isn't. I don't care if birth control is talked about so long as it is stressed that only abstinence is fullproof, and that teenaged pregnancy is almost a guaranteed ticket to poverty.

Advocating for truthfulness in sex education will be more effective in defeating the pro-fisting crowd than the "punitive prudery" that Ace describes.

Let's see,
A medical procedure that is 100% effective, probably with absolutely no side effects and I suppose the long term effect is 100% positive.
Question: what is Vioxx?

http://www.gratuitbaise.com/lesbienne/qrestin/fatty/0989966/anal_fat_girls.html archinghigherlose

http://www.abi00.de/yksarnet/mature/www/mature_ladies_photos.html auditoriumsquintedthan

http://ustrak.isgre.at/chubby-teens/kcov/fatblackwomens.html billydriverseducing