Required STD shots worry some parents - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-05-2007, 10:06 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:22 PM
It actually sounds from the article like parents who want to apply for an exemption on "religious or philosophical grounds" will be able to. Most states already do allow that for various kinds of vaccinations. I'm not sure what the rationale behind that is, nor how they evaluate those applications--presumably that varies from state to state--but clearly it isn't treated the same way legally as refusing treatment for an existing condition.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:08 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Everyone can get irate about this but how many here felt the same way about parents who stopped their kids from getting the MMR vaccine because of the autism link campaign?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:10 PM   #33
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:22 PM
How is that a comparable analogy? You feeling alright tonight?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:14 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 AM
It's comparable in the right to refuse a vaccine for your child, in one case it is because the parent believes that it will encourage sexual activity (just like condoms, morning after pills and sex-ed) and the other because of a fear fuelled media campaign - if you view that as a right for a parent or guardian to consent (or not to) then in both cases it is allowable.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:16 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Firstly look at the green movement for anti-reason based sentimentalism, secondly ask yourself why liberal internationalism has been abandoned in favour for palaeocon realism?

no, not biting on that one.

i assume the subtext is global warming, and it's skeptics who are more akin to Creationists.

of course there's over-zealousness, but i don't think the comparison is apt.

liberal internationalism hasn't been abandoned, in fact we've witnessed what happens when it's betrayed for a utopian neo-colonialisim.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:17 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It's comparable in the right to refuse a vaccine for your child, in one case it is because the parent believes that it will encourage sexual activity (just like condoms, morning after pills and sex-ed) and the other because of a fear fuelled media campaign - if you view that as a right for a parent or guardian to consent (or not to) then in both cases it is allowable.


so ... it's not comparable ...
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:18 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:22 PM
One is moral and one was fear of health.

One disappears with a little education. The other disappears when a life of warped and misguided "values".

Not comparible.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:36 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Does that mean that certain actions are only alright if their done for the right reasons? It would be alright to not get a child immunised for secular reasons but religious/moral objections are invalid?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:44 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



no, not biting on that one.

i assume the subtext is global warming, and it's skeptics who are more akin to Creationists.

of course there's over-zealousness, but i don't think the comparison is apt.

liberal internationalism hasn't been abandoned, in fact we've witnessed what happens when it's betrayed for a utopian neo-colonialisim.
It's 5 Off Topics by now.
- Prominent sceptics who are voracious against creationists and also sceptical of ecopocalypse picture painted by some greens do not make the same types of logical fallacies as creationists (they make entirely different ones - especially if they will only accept evidence that fits their picture). The argument wasn't directly to do with global warming (an accepted scientific theory for over a century) but rather the static and utopian view of the Earth that views every extinction or change as a deviation from an ideal state and doesn't comprehend that the world is always in a state of change (today an accellerated rate of of change).
- Liberal internationalism isn't betrayed if the players never had it in the first place (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice for instance) - it is when liberals start appealing to dictators for their stabilising element at the expense of llike minded dissidents.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:44 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


But this is an entirely different situation.

Refusing medical treatment on religious grounds (which the courts have often disregarded in cases of minors anyway) is distinguishable from refusing medical treatment because you believe it may somehow alter your child's sense of morality.
but perhaps that the child losing her sense of morality can be labeled as coming from a sort of religious school of thought?
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:55 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:22 PM
I'm religious and I still can't fathom this type of rationale. To me, it's like telling our kids that since we think drinking excessively is bad, they shouldn't wear seat belts because it would encourage them to drink and be reckless. Or, since we don't condone animal cruelty, we should never have pets or show kids how to treat animals, because it would just encourage them to kill the animal.

How fatalistic can people get?!
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:57 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 AM
The logic is impeccable though - I mean ever since AIDS came about people just stopped becomming gay; it's a detterent to these people, probably even one with intelligent design.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 09:37 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,997
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryMullen's_POPAngel
If parents talk to their daughters beforehand, and stress the "you're less likely to get cancer" than the "hey guess what? go get freaky this weekend, you've earned it; you've had the vaccine!" factor, then maybe we wouldn't be so concerned in the first place.
Exactly-and I dont know why some of these parents seemingly doubt their own influence and parenting abilities, and the intelligence and self-esteem of their own daughters-so much so that they are threatened by a vaccine. I think perhaps the time spent worrying about the vaccine could be better spent on your relationship with your child and in helping them develop the proper esteem and skills to deal with sexuality issues and all that is invoved with them. Of course parents can do all that and the kids will still have sex prematurely-but the odds are in favor of them not doing so if you do that with your child, I would think. I personally think something is askew when a parent thinks their daughter will run out and have sex if they get a vaccine to prevent cancer. If I was that age and my parent thought that about me, I would be hurt by that.

I heard on CNN last night that 18 other states are considering making the vaccine mandatory-and that basically if you are a teen in the early teen group and having sex you will get HPV.


Texas Gov. urged against cancer order

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 5, 11:04 PM ET

Several key Republicans urged Gov. Rick Perry on Monday to rescind his executive order making Texas the first state to require girls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Lawmakers should have been allowed to hear from doctors, scientists and patients before the state implemented such a sweeping mandate, said state Sen. Jane Nelson, chairwoman of the health and human services committee.

"This is not an emergency," said Nelson, adding that she plans to ask Attorney General Greg Abbott for an opinion on the legality of Perry's order. "It needs to be discussed and debated."

Three other Republican lawmakers filed bills that would override the mandate, and several others were working on similar legislation.

Perry defended his decision, saying his fellow conservatives were wrong to worry that mandating the vaccine will trample parents' rights and promote premarital sex.

"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," Perry said in a statement. "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"

Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons, but critics say the order still interferes with parental rights.

"I don't think the government should ever presume to know better than the parents what to do with children," Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said.

http://keye.healthology.com/cancer/article190.htm?pg=2

"Although some questions remain as to how popular a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease will be, a study published in September 2005 in the Journal of Adolescent Health showed that up to 80 percent of parents were in favor of having their child vaccinated against treatable sexually transmitted infections, like HPV. (90 percent were in favor of vaccinations against HIV and herpes, STDs that have no cure). And in a recent survey, only 11 percent of doctors felt that immunizing against the virus would encourage promiscuous sexual behavior."


Cervical cancer was once the most common cause of cancer death for American women. But the increased use of Pap screening has helped to reduce the death rate by 75 percent, as the test can detect precancerous changes in the lining of the cervix at a stage where the cancer is most curable. Still, it is estimated that over 10,000 cases of cervical cancer will be diagnosed this year, resulting in over 3,000 deaths

Any sexually active woman who has sexual contact with an infected partner is at risk for acquiring HPV, no matter how much protection is used. Even routine condom use does not decrease this risk, as the virus is spread through either through contact with the skin or mucous membranes of an infected partner. An HPV infection may cause visible genital warts, but an infection may be present even without such warning signs.

As there are over 100 strains of the HPV virus and only a few are known to be cancerous, most cases of HPV will never develop into cervical cancer. In fact, infections generally clear up by themselves, according to Laurie Markowitz, a medical epidemiologist for the Centers for Disease Control.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 09:50 AM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Exactly-and I dont know why some of these parents seemingly doubt their own influence and parenting abilities,


you know, that's a really perceptive point.

if a cancer vaccine is going to give your child a license to live like Paris Hilton, just how good a parent are you?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 09:58 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,997
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Maybe for some people it's just easier to focus all your concern on an outside thing such as a vaccine rather then face the more difficult reality of having honest and real communication with your child and doing all the work that is associated with that. I would never say that is the case for every parent who has such concerns about this vaccine, but it certainly is so much work to deal with that issue and all the outside influences that exist regarding sexuality. But of course that is part of the job description of parent.

I think perhaps some parents prefer to live in denial of the whole situation on a personal and family level, then they get all concerned about government interference.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com