Why are so many Conservatives so unrealistic?

Question

Do you really think being abstinent is realistic? My friend, who is a nurse, works in a Conservative community. She works with teenage girls in a treatment facility. She was telling me about how so many parents refuse to let their kids take the new HPV vaccine because it promotes sexual behavior. So instead of protecting their kids from HPV and cervical cancer, they rather keep them at risk. Don't Conservatives realize that being abstinent is unrealistic? It might be the right thing to do, but it most likely won't happen. Humans are sexual beings and eventually, especially during their teenage years, people will begin to explore sex. It's a nature thing. So why not use the resources to protect them? I really want to know the reasoning behind some of these unrealistic views.
Note: This has nothing to do with Liberals. Also, you don't have to agree with me to get the best answer.

Happy Mommy,
you are TOTALLY missing the point. That is the attitude which I am referring to. Just because I say abstinence is unrealistic I get sarcastic comments about 2 year old having sex.

Answer 1

Maybe you should send some educational material about the HPV shot home with them to read over.

I understand that it's the parent's choice whether or not to get their child innoculated against disease, but from what I remember this is the one that is supposed to be given before the child is old enough to leave the house because that's the time when their bodies are more receptive and able to build up an immunity.

The way I see it, the HPV shot is preventing against future risk of cervial cancer and HPV, not saying; "Oh, hey, this is a birth control method! Go have sex!" The places I've gone to say that you should get it before going off to college along with the melanoma shot.

Also- to the people saying "When are you going to stop! 2 and 4 are too young to start worrying about this!"- did you notice she used the word "teenager" in her original post? I'm not sure when two- and four-yeard-olds started to be considered teenagers. That's news to me. :|

Edit: Having said all of that, I think that for some people it may be unrealistic, while for others it's not. My friend has been abstinent for years, and was all the way therough Junior and Senior High School. I think it has more to do with religious views than anything else.

Answer 2

The HPV vaccine is a way to eventually eradicate most types of cervical cancer. Why wouldn't someone want to do their part with that. I think as a parent of a daughter it is my responsibility to protect my daughter from any and every disease that I can. She got all her other vaccinations including the one for menogicocal disease. These vaccinations are the reason that in the United States there are no cases of measles and polio is almost unheard of, and when is the last time you saw anybody that had the mumps? These things used to be plagues and killed hundreds of a thousands of people, but because of vaccinations and antibiotics these things are practically nonexistent in the states, or for the ones that are still around in rare cases, they are more easily dealt with by medicines. You cannot cure cervical cancer by medicine. You can only keep it at bay and put it in remission, but your chances of recurrence are high. If you have ever seen someone die of cancer, you would protect your kids from any kind you could, because you wouldn't want to take that chance.

Answer 3

I'd like to see some solid statistics from a reputable source about sexual activity before the advent of birth control. I'd be willing to wager that while not 100% by any means stayed abstinent prior to marriage, the number was much much higher.

No presence of disease in the first place amongst those who are promiscuous just goes to show that promiscuity is not a good idea. So rather than treat the symptom (disease) lets treat the problem and encourage abstincence.

Answer 4

Well I think it can be a realistic idea if you stick to it, but teenagers are confused and generally it is pretty unrealistic for them. So I agree in a way but I think parents have the right to tell their children what to do until they are 18 years old, or as long as theyre living with them.

Answer 5

So, what you are in essence saying is that parents (Politics don't matter at this point) should ignore their own beliefs and allow CHILDREN to run wild and do whatever they want? You say that sexual curiosity is normal and while that is correct it does not have to be encouraged. Children can and do remain abstinent.

So what is unrealistic? Asking that parent to remain true to their responsibility and raise their child with that same sense of responsibility? How about expecting a child to obey their parent?

Personally I think your views are the ones that are unrealistic. You seem to want a society that doesn't take responsibility for their actions and while that feeling runs rampant throughout the democratic party it is not the way we should live. The distinct lack of personal responsibility in our society is one of the primary reasons we have so many problem today.

Answer 6

Honestly, I think this entire decision belongs in the home. I might choose differently for my daughter than you, but I brought that child into this world and I feed and clothe that child, and someday, I will give an account for how I raised that child. Either in this life or the next.

What my child chooses to do outside the safety of my protection rests on the shoulders of my child. I have the job of keeping him safe until he is an adult.

Answer 7

I am conservative, and I agree with you. It is IGNORANT to think that abstinence is the answer. Why do people think that kids need to know what vaccine they are being given. My parents always told me I am to be seen not heard. Do kids really question what this vaccine is for? More importantly do parents really answer their kid' question with "to protect you from getting a disease when you have sex"? Unbelievable how much people whine about. Aren't these kids getting this vaccination before they're even teens? Ridiculous!!

Answer 8

Disagree. Parents have the right to decide what they want for their children, not the US government. If they choose of their own free will to inoculate their child against a possible threat, then great. If not, who has the right to tell them to do it when it is not an airborne virus?

If lewd behavior is now considered a given in US society, then whats the point of trying to protect it in the first place? What value does a pleasure society bring to the world? Rome tried it and see how that worked out for them? I'd like to see how long a society founded on meth and sex-as-you-please would last.

Answer 9

Because the vast majority of American electorate are ignorant. They see politics as too some distance eliminated from their lifestyles they usually deal with political events like their favourite soccer group. GO TEAM! They will guard terrible movements from their possess get together in view that they view themselves as dependable fans.

Answer 10

how stupid can parents be give a kid a shot&it cures everything that is bs in the first place second i despise government telling people that a shot that the hpv is going to solve their daughters issues clearly that's not the case we dont need a government to tell u what to do with your body that is what our founding fathers belived they belived democery was a vile &worse form of government