English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Just curious.

2007-07-11 16:15:19 · 14 answers · asked by jewel 2 in Health Diseases & Conditions STDs

I love the answers so far (even the hostile ones), but some clarification:

1) In the spirit of the question, IMAGINE that all of your concerns, including cancer, long term efficacy, and promiscuity were about boys instead of girls.

2) HPV is ALSO linked to some rare cancers in men. Check the CDC website. I just found out, too.

3) Theoretically, the more people vaccinated, the closer to an eradication of the 4 strains it vaccinates against. Right?

2007-07-12 04:05:58 · update #1

14 answers

No absolutely not
opposing this vaccination is absurd and maybe even a little evil

ZFF

Wow. Joey C below needs to be educated. how can people be so full of hate and malice as to want girls and women to suffer a disease that can be safely avoided. It is just insane!

2007-07-11 16:17:50 · answer #1 · answered by ZebraFoxFire 4 · 1 2

I am a Christian, and I am also HPV positive. The fact is that we are all sinners, and most of us have had premarital sex. It is a fallacy to believe that STDs only happen to those who are sexually liberal. Condoms are not 100% effective against STDs, and it just takes ONE time and some bad luck to end up with an STD.

I doubt Jesus would oppose a vaccination that saves lives. 50% of all men and women get exposed to HPV, and 80% of women have HPV by the time they are 50 years old. Those facts don't lie.

The reason the vaccination is targeted to women is because they are more affected by the virus because the possibility of cervical Cancer. The medical community usually does not spend much time and money trying to find cures for things that are not life threatening (Herpes versus HIV for example).

You are right that there is a double-standard between men and women and views on sex. It is the same reason male condoms were more readily accepted than female condoms.

I really doubt that receiving the HPV vaccination would have any impact on whether or not a young women chooses to engage in sexual intercourse. It is a moral question because should the government necessarily enforce the vaccination or should it be left in the discretion of the parents?

Instead of withholding the vaccination that can possibly save lives to attempt to keep our children pure, maybe we should try instilling those values in them ourselves so they make informed and wise decisions for themselves - vaccination or not.

2007-07-11 23:37:09 · answer #2 · answered by Agape 5 · 1 0

Nice little question, and to carry it a little further what if it was for boys and girls both? I still don't think that would stop the "Uproar" of a mandatory injection of the vaccine. Nobody knows if a vaccine is 100 % safe in the years to come and I don't think many have seen the effects of HPV on a person and don't understand how bad it can be.
I have once, maybe not as quick as AIDS but the result in the end is the same.

2007-07-11 23:29:09 · answer #3 · answered by dam 5 · 1 1

No, I don't think so. I can only speak for myself, and I guess I have my head in the sand, but what bothers me is that some States want to mandate giving a child 13 years of age this vaccine--a vaccine to protect them against a sexually transmitted virus. So now parents are going to have to say, "Now you are getting this vaccination so when you have sex you won't come down with a virus that can lead to cancer." It just seems "whatever". I did read or hear on TV yesterday the a lot of kids are having sex at 14, so who am I trying to kid--only myself I guess.

2007-07-11 23:21:58 · answer #4 · answered by Darby 7 · 1 0

The uproar has NOTHING to do with gender specific but has EVERYTHING to do with the efficacy of this vaccine. Contrary to the assertions of the manufacturers of this vaccine, it HAS NOT been tested for long term affects. Three children have already died from reactions and another 1600 others hav had serious side affects. There are people who will tell you that the risks out way the benefits but these are not comforting words to the families of those who have died from the vaccine or to those who had serious side affects. So while you are standing in line to recieve your shots, you will be wise to remember that there are many strains of HPV and this vaccine DOES NOT COVER THEM ALL.

2007-07-12 03:27:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

First, the vaccination is not directed towards women, but only girls.

The issue is why didn't they include boys in the study since they contract HPV also? Young girls are being used as the guinea pigs by Merck, which has questionable study tactics.

2007-07-11 23:20:38 · answer #6 · answered by Laughing Libra 6 · 2 1

Probably not, but the vaccination is a good idea. Making it mandatory in order to go to school isn't.

2007-07-11 23:20:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think that if it were effective for men to get it then by all means it should be available for everyone and everyone should get it because this is a serious condition and any steps to prevent it from spreading would be wonderful and should be concidered, good question, by the way!

2007-07-12 10:05:46 · answer #8 · answered by kelly_hotma 4 · 0 0

They need to be worried about a better sex education curriculum in elementary and middle schools instead of a vaccine. They need to be teaching kids why it's best to wait to have sex until they are at least in high school.

2007-07-11 23:27:39 · answer #9 · answered by Shon 5 · 0 2

Sadly enough, the answer is mostly likely not. I think this is stupid and I believe that it should be a mandatory vaccination as it WILL save lives.

2007-07-11 23:17:46 · answer #10 · answered by ajfrederick9867 4 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers