What is wrong with requiring girls to get the HPV vaccination?

Question

We require kids to get vaccinated against MMR, Polio, and many other diseases. As a conservative, i don't normally like the government involved in peoples lives, but this is for the protection of our children, and in some cases, protecting those children from the stupidity of their parents. cervical cancer is a huge issue for todays women, and anything that will prevent that seems to be a good idea.
The whole "It promotes girls to have sex" argument is BS! The vaccine no more promotes sexual activity then seat belts and air bags promote reckless driving.
If parents would rather risk their daughters health then get them the vaccine and actually TALK to them about sex, Isn't that almost child abuse? I know my daughter will be getting the shot in a few years when she is old enough.

Answer 1

People who oppose the HPV vaccination consider that sex would be consensual. If a 9-year-old girl is vaccinated, then in the unthinkable event that she is raped, at least she would not die from cervical cancer. Unlike mumps or chicken pox, HPV is fatal. It just does not seem threatening because it takes so long for the cancer to develop.

Answer 2

Its not the vaccination is not a good idea, its the requirement part that is the problem. Here is Texas the Governor put it into law with out any kind of discussion or debate or even input from his peers or the public. Texas has an abstinence policy, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease - it can also be prevented by using a condom. Its very contradictory to say, we promote abstinence and won't discuss other safe sex options, but you have to take this vaccine for a STD. Plus the vaccine is new, all the long term effects are not known yet. It should be left to the parent and/or girl/woman to make up her own mind on whether or not they will get the vaccine - it should not be a law.

Answer 3

Take sex out of it for a moment. It has been shown that seat belts, air bags and anti-lock brakes actually encourage people to drive more recklessly - because they feel safer doing so. In general, each person has their own level of risk that they are willing to take on; by providing protection from some threats, it is to be expected that some people will then feel comfortable increasing risky behavior.

If you took away seat belts, many fewer people would speed, but the death toll will still be higher than it was before.

So back to sex. If you add this vaccine, some girls who would have been too afraid to have sex before (if they had even heard of HPV) would now be willing to take a risk. In the population as a whole, rates of cervical cancer will plummet but the rate of other STDs will surely increase (with more people having more sex, and more unprotected sex).

You can teach your children what is right and wrong, but at some point they are on their own and there is no amount of threats or discipline that will keep them from doing what they want to. You have to trust them, eventually. Do the best you can to help them grow up right, but protect them as well. If you feel that fear and lies are the best way to get them to toe the line, then why not just have them get the vaccine - but lie and tell them it is for tetnus? Your daughter can grow up lied to and fearful, just like you wanted, but they still have one less thing that might kill them (whether they know it or not).

Answer 4

The Polio vaccine, as well as the MMR vaccine, protect against contagious diseases that are spread through casual contact (i.e. eating contaminated food, drinking contaminated water). If one child acquires the virus, the entire school is at risk. Whereas the HPV virus is spread exclusively through sexual contact.

My daughter is not sexually active and is NOT at risk of contracting or spreading the disease and therefore, the State has no compelling interest in forcing her to be immunized.

Answer 5

it is not correct while you're sexually lively or no longer. you will get it despite while you at the instant are not. Getting the vaccine is possibly surprising for you. bypass forward, & get it, - the substitute of having an HPV remains there. in case you prefer to straight away shrink the possibility of having an HPV+cervical maximum cancers, get the vaccine. My brother's girlfriends buddy have been given the ailment, & it might desire to turn it to maximum cancers. She did no longer get the vaccine... so now she has to observe out for something of her existence. that's no longer honest, & i'm particular you do no longer want that. My suited suggestion: Get it, even nevertheless you at the instant are not sexually lively. that doesn't count number. :) stable success!

Answer 6

Before you hate me for this answer, give me negative (thumbs down) feedback or chose not to use it as best answer, just think about what I have to say. Sometimes the TRUE ANSWER is not always the MOST POPULAR one.

we're finding out about some of the ingredients. Some of the ingredients have previously been deemed UNSAFE by the FDA but are now being put in them. Why the change of heart folks? $$

One ingredient has been proven to cause infertility. "Hey honey, we're going to inject you with this chemical. It may prevent you from getting HPV (while there are safer alternatives) but you might not ever be able to have children. It's the sensible choice sweetheart".

Here are some other ingredients:

-Mercury (research links to Autism)
-Aluminum (research links to Alzheimer's)
-Formaldehyde (Suspected cancer agent; toxic to liver and nerve)
-Antifreeze (great for the car; bad on the liver. Also suspected cancer agent)

The answer is in prevention - that's RIGHT FOLKS! HPV vaccine is aimed at prevention and I can't agree with them more. So how about mothers and fathers stepping out of their comfort zones and preaching safe sex. I hope none of you ever have to say, "Dealing with the discomfort about talking to my daughter about safe sex would have been better than seeing her die".

Answer: weight the risks and benefits. Know that drugs are NOT PROVEN until they're tried on research subjects (hem hem ... that's our 11 year old daughters by the way!)

America - you are starting to make me worry. We are overwhelmed by the "Quick Fix" and the "Easy Way Out". Instead of diet and exercize, we cut out our gallbladder - why the heck was that gallbladder put in anyway? Instead of avoiding high fructose corn syrup and other killer sugars, we'll deal with the diabetes and the medications.

With all these advancements in technology, science, and research, why are we still the 77th most unhealthy country in the world? Why is France and Canada leaps and bounds healthier than we are? Let me spell it out for you:
"P H A R M A C E U T I C A L - - C O M P A N I E S"

(dear friends, if I wind up dead tonight unexplained, I was offed by a pharmaceutical bigwig lol)

PS: Talking to your children about safe sex IS NOT CHILD ABUSE and any contradictory statement would be ignorant. Asking your child to have sex with you would be abuse. Teaching them "right vs. wrong" or educating them on safe sex awareness is not abuse. Always include, "Don't do it!" to your lectures.

Answer 7

I know it sounds like a good idea but often the quickest and easiet solution to a problem is the wrong one.

This just seemed to come out. There are still problems with it.

Answer 8

Not one thing wrong with it. I wish it had been around when I was younger, saved me a lot of worry.

There are those who say the FDA take too long to release drugs onto the market. And then along come those who say it is too quick. I think they just about get it right. I would have no problem taking this and my daughter will.

Answer 9

The FDA is too quick to give approval to drugs for human use. Just go to yahoo search and type in drug recalls, there will be more than enough material to answer your question.

Answer 10

oh my god, you want them to talk to their children about sex, that would be child abuse.