I understand that several states have already mandated this vaccine for young girls. It is supposed to protect against some forms of cervical cancer caused by STD's. It is very expensive ($300 per shot and you need 3 boosters) and insurances are not covering the full costs. Long term side effects are not yet known.
My question for pro-choice people is: isn't this "the government telling us what to do with our bodies?" Why can't my daughter choose abstinence and not get the shot? We are not talking about a disease spread by casual contact. We are talking about a disease spread by sexual contact and there are a lot of opinions about sexual contact, particularly outside of marriage. I don't think it's the gov'ts place to mandate this. Isn't this an infingement on "choice?"
2007-02-23 12:37:17 · 16 answers · asked by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, there are a lot of good points made here. For those of you who are using terms like right-wing nut job and bible thumper, I can't understand why. I have made no reference to religion here; I am talking about choice, and aren't most people on the "left" all about choice?
As for BarB, no I wouldn't get a shot preventing testicular cancer--I am FEMALE, FYI, so your hostile assumption is wrong.
I think it's a valid point for the vaccine that while a woman might choose abstinence, her future partner might have not...
I also think that Merck is pushing this mandate just to line their pockets. They are the only company which produces it. I think they are playing on people's health warnings to make a buck.
I still feel this is an infringement on choice. This is not the same as a disease like Meales or chicken pox which is spread by casual contact that may not be avoidable unless you live in a bubble.
2007-02-24 00:41:09 · update #1
Not a pro-choice in your sense but pro choice in you do not have to sleep with someone & get pregnant. I agree, I would go to court before I allow a virtually untested & unneccessary vaccine to be given to my child. This cancer can only occur from STD illness. It is a waste of taxpayer's money & an invasion of family rights.
2007-02-23 12:48:00 · answer #1 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can't understand why would a parent not want to have their daughter to get a vaccine that would prevent cervical caused by a virus. Even if you do choose abstinace you will have sex one day. Our children already have to have quite a few vaccinations and personally I don't mind them having another vaccination, especially this one.There are so many chuch kids that I have run across over the years and thay are having sex! There was an 18 year old pastors son having sex with several girls and I would bet his parents were pushing abstinace too. Wake up people these kids are having sex and as far as the cost goes, I'm not sure what the cost is but I think my daughter future health is worth it, I am pretty sure that if the church needed a new roof the collection plates would be full.
2007-02-23 12:55:09 · answer #2 · answered by breezy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The debate over the HPV vaccine reveals the sad state of American attitudes towards science and technology. And the comments on this question indicate that the creation-science approach here exists among both wing-nut rightists (suspicion of sex) and full-mooner lefties (paranoia about Big Pharma).
First, I think much of the hoopla here comes because of the role of sex in spreading the disease. Vaccinations against polio, measles-mumps-rubella, etc., also have side effects, but the level of hysteria in discussing them is much lower because there's no s-e-x.
Further on the sex issue, a girl or young woman can choose abstinence, but that doesn't mean she'll avoid HPV. She could contract it from a future spouse who hasn't abstained from pre-marital sex, or in a much worse scenario from a rape.
As for mandating the vaccination, that's the only way to make it effective. Epidemiologists talk about the "herd immunity effect" in making vaccines work. (See link below.) Among animal populations, a large majority must be vaccinated to create a firebreak against further spread of the disease. Human populations in developed countries have achieved this effect through near-universal immunization against certain diseases such as polio and small pox. If unfounded superstition causes a significant portion of the population to skip the vaccination, the enitre population loses the benefit. This--rather than some greedy scheme to boost Merck's share price--is why the vaccination needs to be universal.
2007-02-23 14:21:09 · answer #3 · answered by Bethesdan 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some studies estimate that 50 to 75% of sexually active people have this virus. You better make sure that your daughters don't even do any petting or rubbing instead of sex because they can get it that way, too. Do you think you can sit down and talk about everything about this disease with them? If not, might as well get them vaccinated. Better safe than sorry.
I would think, with as dangerous as some forms of it can be for girls, it would be a great idea to get your daughters vaccinated. If it ever comes out for boys, them too. It is linked to cancers of the penis as well. Not good!!!
I don't think it should be mandatory, however. I would think that it should be up to the child if she is sexually active, though. If the parents are in la la land and think their kids are unlike all the other kids and not "doing it" and they are, the child should be able to choose to protect herself. Just my opinion...This is a dangerous disease that can be prevented.
2007-02-23 13:01:04 · answer #4 · answered by Cerulean 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Texas is the only state that has mandated it so far (It's probably pending in other states.)
I don't think it's known as being a very pro-choice state.
The government should not be mandating patented vaccines, that is one of the most obscene forms of corporate welfare in recent history.
2007-02-23 12:44:15 · answer #5 · answered by Vegan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are running about a week behind the news, bucko. The mandate was removed but the vaccine will be made available to those who want it.
Let me ask you a question. Why would you not ensure your daughter would be free from cervical cancer. If there was a vaccine against prostate or testicular cancer, I'll bet you'd get one.
The vaccine has nothing to do with "choice"...your daughter may remain pure forever (statistics prove she will have sex before she graduates from high school) but someday she will be sexually active. Why would you NOT want her protected.
If you think your daughter will NOT have sexual contact in her teens, you are hiding your head in the sand...
2007-02-23 15:34:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Abstinence is a fine choice, but one cannot choose abstinence for one's husband (I've heard some wander and don't use protection) or, God forbid, rapist or what have you. Is it worth $300 to be protected from a disease which can still be contracted through no fault of one's own?
On a side note, what do you think about mandatory immunizations in general: Measles, mumps, Rubella, tetanus, polio, and so on? Just curious.
2007-02-23 14:30:05 · answer #7 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As a man, I think you make perfect sense. There are no states that mandate the vaccination--they tried to in Texas.
The Governor--who created the plan--decided against it after he was found to have ETHICS ISSUES regarding the supplier of the vaccine. His former Chief of Staff, Mike Toomey---was a Merck Lobbyist, who contributed to Perry's candidacy.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/833633/mercky_motives__drug_company_tries_to_regulate_itself_a/index.html?source=r_health
http://digdeepertexas.com/?cat=3
And by the way, not by coincidence---The Texas Governor is another bible thumping Right Wing Conservative--go figure!!
2007-02-23 12:54:17 · answer #8 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
actually; there are several ways to avoid getting the shots. just say you have either religious or philosophical beliefs against getting the shots. a lot of religions believe you should never put foreign objects into your body. for you it might be a lie; but it's a sure bet. if any government tries to do it against your will on those grounds; you can sue them. (if yousue the united states government on those grounds you will always win.) i am deathly afraid of needles and I've used that excuse several times, and never been challenged.
2007-02-23 12:58:32 · answer #9 · answered by Deomotheses 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, I see your point... and agree with you to a point... and frankly, I would like more testing before anything was mandatory, that's for sure...
but, on the other side, most kids are going to have sex and many will casually, unfortunately... and much of that will be among those in poverty... and when some of them get cancer, which statistically some will, who's paying for it... me and you, because they probably won't have insurance...
it could potentially cut down on literally BILLIONS in future medical expenditures...
our medial system is already absorbing so much of this type of thing that it's costs are skyrocketing and it's ruining the system... I'm not sure I support this exactly, but thier medical care will probably cost much more later than the shots will cost now....
2007-02-23 13:04:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋