Hey Texas girls! Don't want/need vaccinated against STDs? Too bad...

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 00:31:27

You're getting them anyway:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/

Of course the parent's rights groups and conservatives are only complaining that this will encourage premarital sex. Not that they give a crap about the girls wishes.

Check out the above article, and make sure to see the section about Gov. Perry's ties to the maker of this drug.

So what do you think? Should we start vaccinating kids against STDs regardless of their wishes and lifestyle choices? (Including abstinence.)

What's next?

Domino · Sat 03/02/2007 00:44:38

The United States of America...The Earth's most ridiculous country.

Just like esper's thread, i am starting to feel the same way. Free country my ass.

Domino

edit: I have no idea what i am talking about. Sorry if my post looks ill-informed.

LimpingFish · Sat 03/02/2007 00:50:36

"Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade â€" meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 â€" will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines."

Creepy.

Note to self: Buy shares in Merck & Co.

Becky · Sat 03/02/2007 00:51:29

Good. I don't want cervical cancer, and I don't think any other female does either. It's appalling and shocking how ill educated some people are about sexual safety and how sexually transmitted infections actually work. The knee-jerk reaction I've seen from some areas in the US frustrates me: young adults are going to have sex when they want to and feel ready to, not as soon as possible because they've got a shot in their arm at the age of 9 which prevents them from one of many sexually transmitted diseases.

HPV, which is what the vaccine counteracts, is only partially prevented by the use of condoms, so a vaccine increases the chance of personal protection against such diseases. Whilst you -could- argue that people that choose to engage in sexual practices somehow deserve to suffer with whatever diseases they contract, I would hope that people would not take the same stance against any potential HIV vaccine. Just because you're abstinent until marriage doesn't mean that you may not come into contact with it (especially as men can carry HPV and transmit it without knowing unless they've had a specific test.)

We already vaccinate kids against all sorts of things against their wishes, so unless you're against all vaccinations I don't see why the HPV vaccine should be singled out.

Blackthorne · Sat 03/02/2007 00:52:03

HPV causes cervical cancer... and WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE "WAR" AGAINST CANCER, MOTHERFLUCKERS.

Bt

Da_Elf · Sat 03/02/2007 00:54:29

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 03/02/2007 00:50:36
"Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 — will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.’s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

thats the cause of warts right?

yet again i said it in another post but im glad i live a simple life on a tropical island away from all the crap you see on TV like this new stuff in texas. Most i gotta worry about is trafic on the highways that they are fixing for world cup cricket which i know will never be finished on time.

esper · Sat 03/02/2007 00:55:09

Hot crap, man. This sickens me. Next it'll be mandatory abortions.

This is definitely not a country by the people, of the people, and for the people. Unless of course, you're a RICH people. Did you hear about how Paris Hilton got off completely scot free, barring a simple call from her lawyer, from a DUI?

QuoteDriving under the influence is a misdemeanor. If convicted, the defendant will not be jailed, will be given three months' probation, and will be ordered to enter an alcohol program and will have his or her license restricted for 90 days.

NOT if you're Paris Hilton...

LimpingFish · Sat 03/02/2007 00:58:25

I don't have anything against vaccinations, mandatory of otherwise, per se, but in this case it just seems a little odd.

Plus the conspiracy theorist in me is running around in circles and pointing at Gov. Rick Perry's ties to Merck.

Plus there may well be side effects. Look at the controversy surrounding MMR.

Domino · Sat 03/02/2007 01:02:11

Quote from: Blackthorne on Sat 03/02/2007 00:52:03
HPV causes cervical cancer... and WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE "WAR" AGAINST CANCER, MOTHERFLUCKERS.

Bt

Might as well, since we can't ever win the WAR on TERROR.

Darth Mandarb · Sat 03/02/2007 01:04:29

Here we go again ...

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 01:05:06

Becky, if you don't want cervical cancer (which I wouldn't want either!!) then you don't you go ahead and get the shot? Ã,Â But what about the person who says, "wait a minute, I don't WANT this shot, I'm going to be a nun and never have sex anyway."

Why should we single this one out? Because they're FORCING females to be vaccinated against something they can only get by having sex. It's not like a tetanus shot. You don't just walk down the street and accidently fall on an infected penis.

This is very similar to the statement that the National Institues of Health made a few months ago, encouraging routine infant circumcision to help prevent the spread of STDs. Ã,Â Right. Ã,Â So we're supposed to systematically start chopping off the tip of our childrens' penises because they MIGHT decide to be manwhores and sleep with any slut on the street that'll have them. Ã,Â Away with rationality, let's just assume everybody is an idiot.

This all comes down to one thing: Ã,Â How far are we going to let our laws go in order to keep us safe? Ã,Â

We're punished for not wearing our seatbelts. Ã,Â What's next? Ã,Â People keep dying in accidents so we take away all the cars and put everyone on public transportation?

esper · Sat 03/02/2007 01:06:17

Two words: Logan's Run

Domino · Sat 03/02/2007 01:07:28

Yes, Logan's Run. Kill everybody when they turn a certain age. I love that movie.

Adamski · Sat 03/02/2007 01:10:29

I don't see anyone complaining that they had vaccinations against Meningitis, TB, Measeles, Mumps, Rubella, Tetanus... etc etc etc. Why is this such a big deal?

Becky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:15:36

It's not quite as simple as "don't want cervical cancer? don't have sex!" because whilst the MAIN way of transmitting HPV might be through sex, it's not the ONLY way. Worldwide cervical cancer is the 2nd most prevalent female cancer, in the US it is the 8th most prevalent. Why do you think it's very strongly recommended for women to have a pap smear once every five years after the age of 21, whether they are having sex or not?

Why does the issue of lifestyle even have to come into it? Surely we don't want people to die? Particularly when there is a preventative vaccine. HPV and cervical cancer can be contracted any number of ways, why does it become an issue -just- because intercourse is one of the main ways it can be contracted? What about cases of rape? Whoops! Those women wanted to stay abstinent, and now they've gone and contracted HPV. I'll say it again, would you be against a HIV vaccine? But the main way it's spread is through sex right? So only those who have sex should have to go and seek it?

Do you actually agree with ANY forms of vaccination? Because it seems by your logic that we shouldn't have any forms of compulsory vaccination at all, because the government is interfering in our lives!

I believe the circumcision preventing STD transmission was refuted pretty quickly, actually.

QuoteYou don't just walk down the street and accidently fall on an infected penis.

But you might walk down the street and get raped.

Domino · Sat 03/02/2007 01:23:55

It is not about protecting girls from STD's, it is all about big business for these Pharmaceutical companies that make fortunes off their drugs. The more vaccines they dispense, the more money they make. They don't care about anything but the profit margin. They figure if they can require millions of girls to be vaccinated, then the more money they make. They don't actually care what the heck happens to you as long as their profit is in the black in the end.

Becky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:26:04

Don't ever take any medicines ever again then Domino.

esper · Sat 03/02/2007 01:26:50

If you want the vaccination, go get it. If you want your children to have it, bring them in to get it. But don't tell me it's good to make it a compulsory vaccination, especially when the only reason they're even doing it is because the governor is in bed with the company. Do me a favor... Google "Merck lawsuits." You'll find hey have been guilty of a long stream of crap.

It's fine to be vaccinated against Meningitis, Hepatitis, childhood diseases, etc. etc. Isn't that a federal law? This is only in Texas, where Mr. Governor has something to gain... Don't you find any of this in the least bit suspect?

EDIT: That's the point, though, Becky. If he doesn't want to take medicine, he DOESN'T HAVE TO... Unless of course the government makes it mandatory...

Snarky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:27:15

Choosing to refuse vaccination is not completely a matter of personal freedom, because if you get infected you don't only get the disease yourself, you also become a carrier, potentially spreading the infection to others. It's much like smoking in that respect.

So society has a legitimate interest in vaccinating people, even against their will. It doesn't really matter much if individuals feel they will not need it, especially since we know that a significant proportion of them are wrong.

As long as the vaccination itself is harmless, I don't see any problem with this whatsoever. Even if there are possible side effects, it does become a matter of statistics: is a person on average likely to be better of getting the vaccination than not?

Making it mandatory is meaningful exactly because of the sensitive issues at stake. If it was up to the girls, or their parents, how many do you think would accept a vaccination that implied they were planning to have sex?

I'm assuming that the vaccine is effective and that the decision was not influenced by personal financial gain. But even if it was bought, I would consider the policy a Good Thing.

Becky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:33:19

I don't really give a crap about the particular supplier of the vaccine, conspiracy theorists can go argue about that however they like. I am not interested in debating this issue.

I am FAR more frustrated about the lies and ignorance spread around the concept of vaccinating against a deadly cancer that just because it happens to be contracted through sexual intercourse, makes it not needed to be compulsory. WHY is it fine to have compulsory vaccinations against other deadly, contagious diseases and not this one? What makes it different? Because it's passed through sex and therefore only people who want to have sex need to have it? That's such a significant proportion of the population that it damn well might as well be compulsory.