--S-A-- MSNBC: Virginia to Require Cancer Vaccine for Girls

[Guest guest]

Let me say this comment is not directed to any one person- just

looking at the thought, the structure of the logic itself. It is

bad if a guy treats a women like he owns her, as if he can do with

her what ever he wants, his needs have to come first, etc. (Which I

agree wholeheartedly is not right) but when the state demands that

it must inject us with known poisons to keep their costs down (not

even an attempt at a heart connection- simple economics) then are we

not treated as property, that they can do with us what they want, so

their needs are met regardless of our needs and the harm done to

us? Is that not equally abhorrent? Or worse since the state can

issue the laws, they have much greater power and influence over our

lives?

 

On a more personal note, I wasn't aware the state pays medical

bills. I don't use conventional medicine. I pay out of pocket when

I need to. Couldn't the state say that it will stop subsidizing

cervical cancer treatment- if it does subsidize- for the

unvaccinated? Isn't that a more direct solution to the money part

of it? Or does the state get money depending on how many women get

cervical cancer treatment?- if it does. And then a vaccine that

protects women from 4 strains out of 100, that falsely gives women a

sense of protection and therefore increases the risk of cervical

cancer- serves the state's financial interests, not bankrupting it.

And I wonder if they don't get money for getting women vaccinated as

well. So not only would we be property but a cash cow for that

State.

 

What would you say to some guy that would want to make money off of

your sexuality? How long before you would call the police on him?

 

Why would actions like these be acceptible if they were done by the

State?

 

So again, why not let the unvaccinated fend for themselves- health

wise, monetarily, ect.?

 

Misty L. Trepke

http://health.

 

 

, Jessika Stone

<remindersofthen wrote:

>

> Well, the idea is, and I want to say before I start this that I

neither agree nor disagree with this sentiment, but the idea is that

it would keep medical costs for the state down by helping to prevent

cervical cancer. Thats the idea they are suggesting.

> However, since it was mentioned " why just the girls " , it makes me

think that this is actually just another case of the man trying to

keep us down. We have to stay clean for them but they don't have to

stay clean for us. I see how it is. We should be expected to still

be all into a guy with genital warts all over his nether regions,

but we sure as hell better not get any genital warts. Grrrrrr....