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

[Guest guest]

Well, I agree, and that's kind of what I would be saying about the man keeping

us down. If it were mandatory for boys to get the vaccine as well, it would be

an entirely different story.

I also have a problem with the impression that the add campaigns for this

vaccine are giving that HPV is the only cause of cervical cancer. Technically,

its not even a cause, from what I understand, it just increases your chances of

getting it if you are already prone to it.

At the same time, however, I have a problem with groups that claim no one should

get the vaccine because it encourages premarital sex. These are the same people

who believe that teaching children about contraception increases premarital sex.

The statistics prove that abstinence only based sexual education classes only

increase teen pregnancy rates, and that teens are not having any more or less

sex when they've gone through these programs rather than all inclusive programs.

It would stand to reason, then, that if people get this vaccine it is not going

to change the likelihood that they will have sex, it will only change the

likelihood that they will catch one of these 4 strands of HPV when they do

choose to have sex.

A vaccine exists out there, that's great. But if its going to be required to

get it, it should be required that everyone who can contract the disease get it.

And debate over whether or not people should get it should not be based on moral

ideology over health risks. The point of why girls and not boys has, actually,

changed my opinion on this matter, however. I will no longer support (or, more

accurately, not not support) mandatory vaccines until everyone capable of

contracting HPV is required to get the vaccine. I think it is terribly sexist

to require it just of the girls, and a violation of our rights to choose sex

with a wart free partner. Thank you.

 

" Misty L. Trepke " <mistytrepke wrote:

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?

[Guest guest]

What medical costs for the state? Unless people are on medicade, I can't

think of a state in the union where the government pays for anything

medically. I don't see it as " man trying to keep you down. " I see it as a

total invasion of privacy. I don't want my granddaughter injected with

anything and it has nothing to do with femminism or inequality. It is

simply from the standpoint of her personal health and safety, nothing more.

 

Regards,

 

Bruce Guilmette, PhD

Author: THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN JUST LIVING, A Personal Story About

Cancer Survival

Survive Cancer Foundation, Inc.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org