AUSTIN, Texas — Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
Is this what our society has come to?
2007-02-02 12:40:29 · 13 answers · asked by moegreen29 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I can see how this would be good if its optional but mandatory just sounds Stalinistic.
2007-02-02 12:41:53 · update #1
here is the link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250019,00.html
2007-02-02 12:50:06 · update #2
Its a sexually transmitted disease quit comparing it to small pox and polio!
2007-02-02 12:57:41 · update #3
We have demonstrated that a virus can be eradicated by requiring vaccination. Smallpox was once a crippling and disfiguring killer and is now gone except for research samples. Polio would be gone except for groups that decide to flex their religious muscle and reject the protection of the vaccine. Polio outbreaks still occur among the Amish and plain Mennonite. What has it gained them except the suffering of their children? The fact that HPV is sexually transmitted is irrelevant. It is common, and cervical cancer kills. The only reason to hold forth against vaccinating for a particular virus is that you think that you and yours will NEVER get it, and that you think it is a deserved punishment for those who do. I find that particularly un-Christian in that it refuses the possibility that someone will reform their habits. It is also un-Christian in that the virus can be transmitted to a woman who has only had sex with her husband, and he may have had even one previous partner who had the virus. Why should she be punished? No, this is a virus eradication program and those of you who dwell on it as being sexually transmitted had best get over it. My complaint is that it isn't reaching far enough. HPV also infects men, so men and boys should be innoculated. This is not a "cancer" vaccine, it is a virus vaccine and men also get and carry the virus. They should get serious and mandate the innoculation for EVERYONE. I'm not sure where to look in my Bible to find where it says that I should let my children be a reservoir for a potentially fatal disease, be it smallpox, polio or HPV. Maybe you could tell me where to look.
2007-02-02 13:24:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What, you like the idea of people dying of cervical cancer? How about Smallpox, Polio, etc.
The way that was decreed does raise an eyebrow, though it is hardly the first vaccine mandated by law for school children.
The squishy part really is that it is an STD. I am not sure how much difference it makes. Since it is not airborne, or casual contact, it probably should be voluntary, but I can see it being argued both ways.
Do you see a downside to it? Let me put it a tad differently, if it was a vaccine for say West Nile Virus, would you have the same reaction?
-Dio
2007-02-02 20:51:24 · answer #2 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the problem with your theory is you are under the impression it is only sexually transmitted. However, there have been cases of girls getting cervical cancer who have never had sexual relations. Also, that same virus has also been known to cause testicular cancer in males.
However it is very contagious. So if we were to vaccinate for all other contagious diseases, why not cancer?
He is taking a big step to ensure the future health of his state.
Its not just school girls he is protecting, it is everybody in the state, for future means. If they are protected now, then as adults cervical cancer can possible be abolished.
So yeah it makes sense. Eventually it will be standard in all states. If we can stop cancer, we need to stop it.
The AIDS vaccine is pretty close to perfection, should we not push that one either.
You theory is equal to the thought if we don't discuss protection, they won't have sex. See the problem?
2007-02-02 20:55:10 · answer #3 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what problems do you and the first answerer, have with a clean, disease free society??
signing a vaccine into law, makes it where the government will subsidize the cost. otherwise, you have to pay the full amount out of your own pocket. this way, it encourages more people to do the sensible thing, and get the vaccination.
2007-02-02 20:50:50 · answer #4 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A certain amount of people resisted mandatory vaccinations for polio, chicken pox and smallpox as well.
2007-02-02 20:48:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just because he signed it into law, doesn't mean that it will pass. It is controversial and there are bound to be many many problems with this in the future. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
2007-02-02 20:44:38 · answer #6 · answered by gloria123445566 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A good idea to prevent sexually transmitted viruses.
2007-02-02 20:45:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
generally, it would be a school requirement, so i guess it would be enforced by the department of education.
Parents can have their daughters opt out of the inoculations by filing an objection on religious or other philosophical grounds.
2007-02-02 20:44:52 · answer #8 · answered by nermil 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The larger government gets, the easier it is to pass such things.
If we do not participate in democracy, democracy will become some other form of government.
2007-02-02 20:43:35 · answer #9 · answered by tabulator32 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
An enlightened one that tries to prevent it's citizens from going through diseases for which there is prevention.
2007-02-02 20:42:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋