http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070223/cm_uc_crlchx/op_201175;_ylt=A0WTUf5sqeNFxCwBcRP9wxIF
A vaccine that could prevent 70% of cervical cancer cases and there's a debate?
2007-02-26 14:49:33 · 24 answers · asked by God 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
People the government has been mandating vaccinations for years. If you're old enough to answer questions on here, you were required to be vaccinated before you enrolled in school.
2007-02-26 14:57:03 · update #1
Well, I don't think it said anything about "religious" people in general, but it is a bit ridiculous to believe you are sending a young girl the wrong message by having her take a shot which would prevent a sexually transmitted cancer, because children are going to have sex if their parents have this "discussion" with them or not.
In fact, parents don't even have to tell their daughters that the vaccine is against a sexually transmitted cancer; did you ever know why you were getting half of the shots you got? When the time comes, and the girls really want to know, they would be mature enough to maturly handle it, like at age seventeen or eighteen, around graduation time. Until the end of high school, girls shouldn't have a clue as to what shots they are taking, if those shots are mandatory by the state's laws.
Thus, vaccines will only encourage sex in teenage girls, if those girls understand why they are being given vaccines, and even if they do understand why they are being given vaccines, it's only a "precuation" not an "expectancy" as this stupid article makes it seem. Would you rather your daughter have sex behind your back, and catch HPV, or, as a mandatory precuation, have her take a vaccine, in the case that she has sex behind your back?
2007-02-26 14:59:36 · answer #1 · answered by The Wizard 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO I don't think so. I think if there's a type of cancer that runs in the family by all means get the vaccine! Cover all the bases. Science is just exposing God's intelligent design and what we discover should be used for the good of all.
2007-02-26 14:53:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Grrrrrr! Not all RELIGIOUS people are CHRISTIAN! There are many religious people who belong to one of the THOUSANDS of religions that is not Christianity.
And no, I don't believe it would encourage sex. I don't believe sex is evil either. If the baby that I am carrying is a girl (the other two are boys), she will be vaccinated as soon as she is the age for it (8 I think). I am older than that and am pregnant so I cannot receive the vaccine, as of yet I have not been exposed to HPV so six weeks after this baby is born, I'm getting shot!
2007-02-26 14:55:05 · answer #3 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This vaccine only protects against 4 types of cervical cancer, there are over 40 different types of cervical cancer. The debate is giving the vaccine to children who are 9 or 10 years old, not teenagers.
2007-02-26 14:53:31 · answer #4 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
1) its stupid to think that getting a shot(or series of shots, from my understanding) would increase chances of having sex earlier.
2) legally requiring the use of a relatively new drug, on people that young, for an ailment that is not contagious, is crazy!
3) what the hell does religion have to do with anything on that article or issue? seriously, reducing teen pregnancy is a good thing.
4) did you READ that article? the idea of legislating such a drug, ESPECIALLY for that age, is utterly bizzare and abhorrent. I have a friend who looked into getting it, and its also rather expensive.
doesn't the fact that they don't even know it will work for more than 5 years, make you concerned about what OTHER effects that it could have, long term? I mean 5 years isn't even that long!
2007-02-26 15:23:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
People just want to be able to decide, that's all. Pro choice people are always saying, "keep your laws off my body." Well, can't parents decide if they want their kids inoculated this way?
In response to your first question, How many women or girls have abstained from sex because they were afraid of getting cancer? I've never heard of that. If they aren't believers, wouldn't they worry more about stds and unwanted pregnancy? I bet if this had been presented as an option instead of a mandate it would have been better received. We're tired of a secular government interfering in our lives and teaching our children that we can mitigate the consequences of disobedience to God through chemistry and relativistic sociology.
2007-02-26 14:54:14 · answer #6 · answered by celebduath 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They don't know the long term side effects of the drug. Many people don't think the government should be allowed to tell parents that their kids have to be vaccinated against an STD. I'm not religious at all and I'm against the mandatory vaccination.
2007-02-26 14:53:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's the delivery system of the vaccine that disturbs them. A rigid rod, pointed at the end penetrating the innocent flesh of a young girl, she shudders as it presses against the skin and sighs as it forces an opening and goes deeper, deeper until at last a rush of fluid enters her body....
2007-02-26 15:15:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't know about "religious people" in general...
What I do know is that I am a strong believer in Jesus and everything He teaches in His Word, and yet I don't believe that a vaccine will "encourage" teens one way or another.
People have sex outside the boundaries of marriage because sin is eminant in all of our lives. It's Satan's influence in peoples' lives and free will which cause sin to happen. It's only by the grace and mercy of God that we are able to "flee temptation" in our lives.
2007-02-26 14:55:47 · answer #9 · answered by Jenn 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
fantastically a lot all suggestion that has been given by Christians became semi good maximum issues practiced by the Christians are fantastically freakin poor, jointly with the crusades. yet interior the case the Ignorant(Christians) are trying to create a clean bread of complacent ignorami
2016-12-05 00:19:31 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋