unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Liberals Dig Deep for Media "Bias" | Main | The Sun Is Setting on West »

November 01, 2005



OMG! Only an ill-advised, female-phobic man with a wife (or none) that has no spine, or ovaries, no female children, no regard for the gender in general, that could or would ever make such a remark. When did disease prevention morph to the politician's misguided morality by trying to intervene with saving lives?

It must be good in OZ, Wizzards of Women's Health!

North Dallas Thirty

Um....the problem here is that "using aggressively" means mandating that children receive the vaccine before puberty, with the expectation that they are going to have sex.

Let's face it, HPV is not like measles, mumps, or rubella. Those are infective simply by doing things that one expects children to do; HPV comes about primarily by doing things they're not supposed to be doing. I also see their point; telling kids they're vaccinated against an STD may be generalized into protection against ALL STDs.

This is one of those times where I call adiaphora; not being vaccinated against HPV is not going to inherently put every kid in danger, so it should be voluntary for parents to allow it.

The Malcontent

I don't know, Dobson's argument rings about as hollow to me as "abstinence only." Ain't gonna happen.

He's so blinkered by his narrow view of "morality" that he can't see the forest for the trees. I'm with Robbie and Michelle on this one.


I understand where you're coming from, NDT. I think parents should be able to opt their children out of vaccination if they really want to.

However, this is a vaccination against a virus almost solely responsible for a form of cancer. It's a major scientific break-through. Yet, here come the puritans "But that means they'll have sex!" I cannot imagine there are going to be hordes of teenagers out there going "Well, I'm guarded against HPV, game on!" Most teenagers have no idea what HPV is. Hell, most adults have never heard of it.

There's a time for right-wing prudery, and then there's a point where some of these people go overboard. In a perfect world, we'd be all about abstinence until marriage, and no one would catch anything, and life would be happy happy.

As we don't live in that world, and likely never will, I cannot imagine the problem with tossing a little cancer protection a child's way.

If we had a vaccine against HIV, I would love to hear the argument against it.

Sometimes, when thinking these topics over, I wonder if there isn't a strain of thought involved where having "consequences" for sexual behavior are considered good things, because they discourage promiscuity. I think some of these far right religious types actually do go there in their thought processes. Not all, but there is definitely an element of puritanism involved that bothers me.

The comments to this entry are closed.