Why are certain politicians against the concept of an HPV vaccine?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/04/19/re...

Are girls to be punished by possible cervical cancer if they are "dirty" and have sex in their teens?

Honestly, If guys were open and susceptible to getting penile cancer by pre-marital teen sex, there would be shots given every five minutes, even in the church.

Ah, a neocon voter, eh Norman?

LOL You made snizz laugh out loud..seriously..

it's the same with birth control. If men could get pregnant, birth control would be free, mandatory, and 110% effective!!

~V.

Pandering

They are not against the concept of a vaccine. They believe it condones sexual promiscuity and sends a bad message to young women and girls. It is a matter of imposing their morality on the rest of society. Kind of like those abstinence pledges made by teens. Those taking a pledge are just as likely to have an STD and far more likely to be ignorant.

Religious people tend to lack logical minds and are therefore over-run by their morals and emotions.

If HPV will decrease the cancer rate, then so be it...

Because their misogynist pigs.

HPV is not something you get from promiscuity. It is like meningacoccal, it is in most bodies but lays dormant. You need only have one sexual partner and both be perfectly clean and healthy, and you can still get HPV/cervical cancer.

Boys should have to get the shots too.
They are carriers.

A lot of people think that getting the vaccine encourages pre marital sex, working in the medical field, I wish we could just give it to ppl. Males are HPV carriers and acan even suffer from some of the symptoms. Thing is there is no way the government has ok'd to tell if a male has it. I have know of women who were virgins to come up positive for HPV because the man they married was not a virgin and had picked it up somewhere. Better safe than sorry.

Its not the governments job to force medical things on people that only have no bearing on ones affecting someone else. This is not Russia. If they can do this there is no stopping what they can force you do do. The government wants to run your life from the cradle to the grave.

They think it's like giving the go ahead to have sex.

Are you sure they are against the concept of the vaccine- or are they against making the vaccine mandatory?

"Are girls to be punished by possible cervical cancer if they are 'dirty' and have sex in their teens?"

That's the Christian argument, yes.

It's not right of the church to make laws against certain things. If they don't want these things to happen to them, fine. If they don't want to be protected from diseases, fine. But they have NO right to stop others from getting protected. No right at all.

First off sex is not a leading cause of cervical cancer it is a very small amount and you would have to have repeated sex with multiple partners with no condoms and at that point you more likely come up with an STD first. Second that can only attempt to protect against one type of cervical cancer and has many side effects. There are still dozens of other viruses that will cause cervical cancer even if you take that vaccine. It is new and unproven I wouldn't give my child something like that either.

I'm against this and NOT for religious grounds. The commercial even says not effective against all types of HPV. I have a daughter and I don't want her forced to get any more vaccines that are totally unproven in long term effects. I have nothing against the ones like polio, mmr, etc. The new ones for things like chickenpox have long term effects that I don't want her exposed to. If she gets pregnant in twenty years, she will have to be careful to avoid anyone with chickenpox because by that time the vaccine will have worn off and she will not have the antibodies and it could endanger her baby. I didn't want her to have it but she was forced to for school. Who knows what long term effects this new vaccine will have when the girls get pregnant later on. And it is only a matter of time before any vaccine becomes required by the state.

I'm sure that some of that commentary was fallout from Texas. The issue here in Texas was two fold.

1- People had issues with the state REQUIRING it as a condition to attend school.
2- The Legislature had a big issue with the way the Governor did it. He basically cut them out of the decision and that pissed them off.

As much as I'm in favor of the vaccine, both were valid points.

honestly, there are some safety concerns with vaccinations:

Dec 12, 2007: "Amid a growing national debate over the safety of childhood vaccines and whether too many are required, Merck & Co. is recalling about a million doses of the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine because of contamination risks, reports the Associated Press. "

....add to this vaccines contaminated with mercury

....add to this the possibility of HIV contamination through vaccines given in the Congo

....etc.

The pharmacueticals also wanted immunity from medical lawsuits in order to quickly develop an avian flu vaccine....

Pharmacueticals are a real issue....

actually, as far as I remember, this vaccine is not thoroughly researched yet....

also, to do such, may imply the concept of admitting that the state of morals has fallen way below standards.

the sad part about politicians is that they are prioritizing "show of face" rather than address the real issues with a strong desire to resolve it, regardless of how embarrassing it may be.

but let's give them the benefit of the doubt here.

what if there happens to be a dangerous side-effect not yet discovered because of lack of research?

do you know the history of the children of Thalidomide? if not, please do to this link and read how the children became deformed because of a drug that was prescribed but was lacking in research....

this may be the reason why certain politicians are against it... so that history will not repeat itself again in a different horrendous way.

or maybe I'm just giving them politicians too much benefit of the doubt right now.... :X

because others are trying to force girls to take it, which in other words gives them the right to be even more permicuous subjected themselves to even more dangerous STD's.

I think the religious right objects to the vaccines because they think that giving vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases to 9 yr old sends the wrong message to the children (i.e. get ready for sex, here's your vaccination).

I think there is also a portion of the population who thinks vaccinations are dangerous (causing autism, etc.) and they do not want another round of vaccinations for their kids.

My girls are too young for this issue now, but I can tell you that I personally would rather teach my kids about safe sex than vaccinate them at the age of 9 for VD.

Peace!

Their pandering to the religious right wing.

I've always said, if you can control someones sexuality, you can control them in a lot of other ways.

I do not think women should be "punished" with cervical cancer for any reason. I do not think birth control or HPV vacines would contribute to pre marital or multi partnered sex. These things are happening anyway.

I do have a huge problem with a politican telling me that my young daughter MUST be vaccinated, with a NEW and controversial drug. There is NO data on long term effects. The possible risks and side effects are still out.

During the 50's & 60's there was a popular drug ( I think it eased the morining sickness many pregnant suffer with), years later it was deemed to be the factor in the increase of birth defects.

If you and your daughter wish to take the vaccine, go ahead, I certainly will not stop you. But it just won't fly when you tell me that my daughter MUST take it.

This outcry that the politicians face comes from the mothers and fathers of these girls, not from the church! Personally, I am sick and tired of the government trying to "protect me from myself!"

The line that caught my eye was that 50% of the women who are sexually active (and that include monogamous spouses) are infected with this papilloma virus. It really is a much bigger problem than people are realizing.

Why anybody would be opposing a safe and effective vaccine for it is beyond me.
However people opposed vaccines for Polio, the Flue and even smallpox when they were made available. I guess there will always be a small crew of nutbars able to get media and political attention.

Are you SERIOUSLY asking people to explain why certain, unspecified individuals believe certain things??

Maybe you should ask a question that can be answered RESPONSIBLY.