|
|
| Sick of... |
| Pro-choicers in general. |
|
17% |
[ 13 ] |
| Pro-choice arguments. |
|
19% |
[ 15 ] |
| Pro-choice ideology. |
|
25% |
[ 19 ] |
| life in general. |
|
15% |
[ 12 ] |
| no respect whatsoever. |
|
22% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:32 am
lymelady Lorysa lymelady I just got told by someone that I want to punish girls for having sex with cancer because I don't want girls to have to take a vaccine when they don't want to. So I suppose that means I want to punish guys with STDs by not forcing them to wear condoms when they don't want to. It's not about parents anymore. The government is MANDATING it. Two states at least have no opt-out at all in the bills they're pushing. So girls would have to get it whether they or their parents liked it or not. It's insane to do it on a vaccine with so little testing, especially since the problem can be caught with a simple pap smear. I really hope it's safe and if it turns out to be, I believe they should mandate it. But 1, it might not be safe, and 2, it doesn't even protect against all cervical cancer.
The trick is ladies, go in for your pap smear. Seriously, it can save your life. My mom's best friend, who've I've mentioned a couple of times before of having died of cancer? She would still be alive today had she gone in for her pap smear.
Wow, next thing you know choicers are going to be making pap smears manditory as well. They do save lives.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:19 am
Beware the Jabberwock lymelady Lorysa lymelady I just got told by someone that I want to punish girls for having sex with cancer because I don't want girls to have to take a vaccine when they don't want to. So I suppose that means I want to punish guys with STDs by not forcing them to wear condoms when they don't want to. It's not about parents anymore. The government is MANDATING it. Two states at least have no opt-out at all in the bills they're pushing. So girls would have to get it whether they or their parents liked it or not. It's insane to do it on a vaccine with so little testing, especially since the problem can be caught with a simple pap smear. I really hope it's safe and if it turns out to be, I believe they should mandate it. But 1, it might not be safe, and 2, it doesn't even protect against all cervical cancer.
The trick is ladies, go in for your pap smear. Seriously, it can save your life. My mom's best friend, who've I've mentioned a couple of times before of having died of cancer? She would still be alive today had she gone in for her pap smear.
Wow, next thing you know choicers are going to be making pap smears manditory as well. They do save lives.As long as they're sure it's safe, I don't see anything wrong with making such a vaccine mandatory. What possible reason can you have not to get a safe vaccine against cancer? I mean, come on, someone's saying they don't want it because it hurts a lot? It sounds better than a pap smear (not that I wouldn't have the smear as well, but if I had to choose between them and they did the same thing, I'd rather take the vaccine). I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I read an article about this vaccine that had people complaining because it would make money for the company producing it (hey, if they've made a safe vaccine for a cancer, I say they deserve money), they complained because it would take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children (what parent wouldn't want their child to be vaccinated against cancer?) and they claimed that this cancer would somehow encourage young girls to become promiscuous; as though taking away one of the risks of sex is going to make them all careless. Yeah, right, give them more credit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:30 pm
Scribblemouse Beware the Jabberwock lymelady Lorysa lymelady I just got told by someone that I want to punish girls for having sex with cancer because I don't want girls to have to take a vaccine when they don't want to. So I suppose that means I want to punish guys with STDs by not forcing them to wear condoms when they don't want to. It's not about parents anymore. The government is MANDATING it. Two states at least have no opt-out at all in the bills they're pushing. So girls would have to get it whether they or their parents liked it or not. It's insane to do it on a vaccine with so little testing, especially since the problem can be caught with a simple pap smear. I really hope it's safe and if it turns out to be, I believe they should mandate it. But 1, it might not be safe, and 2, it doesn't even protect against all cervical cancer.
The trick is ladies, go in for your pap smear. Seriously, it can save your life. My mom's best friend, who've I've mentioned a couple of times before of having died of cancer? She would still be alive today had she gone in for her pap smear.
Wow, next thing you know choicers are going to be making pap smears manditory as well. They do save lives.As long as they're sure it's safe, I don't see anything wrong with making such a vaccine mandatory. What possible reason can you have not to get a safe vaccine against cancer? I mean, come on, someone's saying they don't want it because it hurts a lot? It sounds better than a pap smear (not that I wouldn't have the smear as well, but if I had to choose between them and they did the same thing, I'd rather take the vaccine). I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I read an article about this vaccine that had people complaining because it would make money for the company producing it (hey, if they've made a safe vaccine for a cancer, I say they deserve money), they complained because it would take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children (what parent wouldn't want their child to be vaccinated against cancer?) and they claimed that this cancer would somehow encourage young girls to become promiscuous; as though taking away one of the risks of sex is going to make them all careless. Yeah, right, give them more credit. 1. They aren't sure it's safe. It hasn't been tested on the age group it's being administered to. It's given girls seizures. It contains aluminum. 2. You'd still need a pap smear. It's not really an anti-cancer vaccine, though it's being marketed as such. It's an anti-STD/genital warts vaccine. It protects against some strains of HPV that cause cancer...but not all of them, so you still need to be tested for HPV that causes cancer. 3. I wouldn't want my children taking this vaccine now. I'm not taking it, if I'm not sure it's safe enough for myself, I certainly wouldn't give it to my children. No one knows what the long term affects are. No one knows how long the vaccine lasts. And if I take my daughter in for her anual pap smear, HPV will be caught and taken care of without turning into cancer. The other thing I don't believe in, but they're still not sure if it's safe, and mandating a potentially dangerous vaccine against the wishes of young women is, well, dangerous. Give them a choice at least. Do you want to risk seizures resulting in injury, autoimmune problems, and possible unknown problems in the future by taking this vaccine in order to avoid the most common strains of a virus which might develop into cancer? Don't make people take that risk against their wills without a very, very good reason. If it was positively as safe as the rest of the vaccines required, if Merck wasn't paying politicians to push this through, if it DID prevent all cervical cancer and took care of the need to keep testing for HPV, if the American Pediatric Center, the National Vaccine Information Center, and a whole bunch of doctors weren't opposing this mandate, if every state had an opt-out, maybe I wouldn't be so opposed. As it stands, there are a lot of unanswered questions about gardasil, and the company is mismarketing it, which makes me very uneasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:33 pm
I understand Scribble's and everyone's points, but... Vaccines have weird crap in them... I don't know what exactly, but really weird crap. If California made it mandatory, I'd run from my doctor. I'm not going to have strange things forced into me just because I'm a minor and just because they can. gonk Maybe other shots are safe, maybe some should be required, who knows, but this is just weird to me...
10 Things About Gardasil
I'm not sure if the site's PG-13, I only read this one page that Wikipedia linked to, but it has some interesting things. I hate the thought of pap smears, but I'll get those when it's time to worry about them.
Edit: My point is, I'm not against cancer protection and I don't think at all that it will encourage underage sex... it's just that I think people, and the girls should choose for themselves - not the government, and not even the parents unless it's proven safe. Then I might get it when I'm older, and not afraid of needles anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:46 pm
lymelady Scribblemouse Beware the Jabberwock lymelady Lorysa lymelady I just got told by someone that I want to punish girls for having sex with cancer because I don't want girls to have to take a vaccine when they don't want to. So I suppose that means I want to punish guys with STDs by not forcing them to wear condoms when they don't want to. It's not about parents anymore. The government is MANDATING it. Two states at least have no opt-out at all in the bills they're pushing. So girls would have to get it whether they or their parents liked it or not. It's insane to do it on a vaccine with so little testing, especially since the problem can be caught with a simple pap smear. I really hope it's safe and if it turns out to be, I believe they should mandate it. But 1, it might not be safe, and 2, it doesn't even protect against all cervical cancer.
The trick is ladies, go in for your pap smear. Seriously, it can save your life. My mom's best friend, who've I've mentioned a couple of times before of having died of cancer? She would still be alive today had she gone in for her pap smear.
Wow, next thing you know choicers are going to be making pap smears manditory as well. They do save lives.As long as they're sure it's safe, I don't see anything wrong with making such a vaccine mandatory. What possible reason can you have not to get a safe vaccine against cancer? I mean, come on, someone's saying they don't want it because it hurts a lot? It sounds better than a pap smear (not that I wouldn't have the smear as well, but if I had to choose between them and they did the same thing, I'd rather take the vaccine). I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I read an article about this vaccine that had people complaining because it would make money for the company producing it (hey, if they've made a safe vaccine for a cancer, I say they deserve money), they complained because it would take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children (what parent wouldn't want their child to be vaccinated against cancer?) and they claimed that this cancer would somehow encourage young girls to become promiscuous; as though taking away one of the risks of sex is going to make them all careless. Yeah, right, give them more credit. 1. They aren't sure it's safe. It hasn't been tested on the age group it's being administered to. It's given girls seizures. It contains aluminum. 2. You'd still need a pap smear. It's not really an anti-cancer vaccine, though it's being marketed as such. It's an anti-STD/genital warts vaccine. It protects against some strains of HPV that cause cancer...but not all of them, so you still need to be tested for HPV that causes cancer. 3. I wouldn't want my children taking this vaccine now. I'm not taking it, if I'm not sure it's safe enough for myself, I certainly wouldn't give it to my children. No one knows what the long term affects are. No one knows how long the vaccine lasts. And if I take my daughter in for her anual pap smear, HPV will be caught and taken care of without turning into cancer. The other thing I don't believe in, but they're still not sure if it's safe, and mandating a potentially dangerous vaccine against the wishes of young women is, well, dangerous. Give them a choice at least. Do you want to risk seizures resulting in injury, autoimmune problems, and possible unknown problems in the future by taking this vaccine in order to avoid the most common strains of a virus which might develop into cancer? Don't make people take that risk against their wills without a very, very good reason. If it was positively as safe as the rest of the vaccines required, if Merck wasn't paying politicians to push this through, if it DID prevent all cervical cancer and took care of the need to keep testing for HPV, if the American Pediatric Center, the National Vaccine Information Center, and a whole bunch of doctors weren't opposing this mandate, if every state had an opt-out, maybe I wouldn't be so opposed. As it stands, there are a lot of unanswered questions about gardasil, and the company is mismarketing it, which makes me very uneasy. 1. I was assuming it was safe. IF it were safe, I'd see nothing wrong with it. 2. I know, I didn't say I would have it and no pap smear. I was just saying that if everything the pap smear tested for was covered by a completely safe vaccine (which this isn't, I know, I'm just making an example) I would rather have the vaccine. 3. I was assuming it was safe. Didn't think drug companies would be as stupid as to be crooked (wouldn't they get sued out the wazoo?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:00 pm
It's been tested enough to be released. I don't think it should be pulled from the market, or that women shouldn't be taking it. It's their choice, and it makes sense to protect yourself from cervical cancer. I wouldn't advise against getting it if you know the risks and you feel the benefits outweigh it.
It just hasn't been tested enough to be made mandatory. If it is made mandatory though...the blame won't be on Merck. It'll be on the government.
It might turn out to be perfectly safe, but it hasn't yet. Until it turns out to be safe enough that the benefits outweigh the risks, I don't believe it should be mandatory, especially not since in this country, cervical cancer is on a steady decline without a vaccine.
I agree with you though. If there was a safe vaccine that could prevent pap smears for life, I would take it.
And really, people disagreeing with me and believing it should be mandatory isn't what ticks me off. People who tell me I want women to have cancer because I oppose it being mandatory are the ones who tick me off. The truth of the matter is, I'm just as concerned for women's health as they are, but I have reservations about the safety of this vaccine and forcing something that could be unsafe on people who don't want it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:49 pm
Mostly it's the 'it'll turn young girls into sluts' argument that really ticks me off. I just don't see the logic. I don't think logic was involved in the process of developing that argument at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:25 pm
Scribblemouse Didn't think drug companies would be as stupid as to be crooked (wouldn't they get sued out the wazoo?). They don't care. They can afford a few million in damages. That's nothing compared to the billions they make every year. Also: HPV is rarely tested for, because there's no cure or treatment and it's relatively benign (unlike HIV). You can remove warts, but not the virus, and usually that's all anyone cares about. Because HPV isn't the only thing that causes cervical cancer, Pap smears need to be done anyways, and usually you can't even feel them. Very few nerve endings up there. With regular smears, cervical cancer is usually stopped in its tracks very early. HPV isn't even guaranteed to cause cancer. Or even warts. Some people's immune systems are just good enough to keep it totally under control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:10 pm
wow...so they finaly released it...my girl friend was a volenteer in this project during its testign stages...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:08 am
Scribblemouse Mostly it's the 'it'll turn young girls into sluts' argument that really ticks me off. I just don't see the logic. I don't think logic was involved in the process of developing that argument at all. I don't think so either. I understand the concern about girls having sex in that the product is being mismarketed and it sounds like it protects completely against cervical cancer by listening to the commercials, so girls might have sex thinking they're entirely safe from HPV when in actuality they aren't. That's as far as my understanding of arguments about this making sex a problem though. Girls are going to have sex anyway. Either they do it before marriage or after, most women have sex at one point, and anyone who has sex with someone at any point in time is at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:00 pm
  By the way...
We're all stupid and want women to die. Just to let you guys know.Quote: All the pro-lifers I've ever met in my entire life so far are pretty... stupid. Stupid as in, they don't know much about pregnancy, sex, and abortion. And stuff like that. Yay! Someone was quoted! ^^
Yeah. Let's not mention where the pregnancy information on the abortion debate thread came from.
Just putting it out there, we're idiots, either that, or we can't put ourselves in the shoes of other people. It can't be because we think there are solutions that don't involve killing other people. No, not at all. Since we disagree on the matter of abortion, either we're stupid or naive...we can't possibly have our own point of view, backed up by logic and compassion for both children and women. We just hate women, we laugh when they die, and we want the world populated by precious white babies.
On the subject of us not caring about women being in abusive homes where they'll be beaten for being pregnant...how is it any better to quietly abort the baby, and then SEND THE GIRL BACK INTO THE HOME instead of getting social services involved?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:04 pm
i love that logic. "they don't think like me so, logically, they all msut be stupid!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:17 pm
I understand what the Choicers mean... but lyme summed it up. I hate that there's never a perfect solution and I feel that being Pro-life, I have to ignore the fact that not everyone has it as easy as me, but that's not true, I know that people around the world and in America are in horrible situations. I don't ignore it, because it bothers me all of the time when I think about my stance. Killing shouldn't be the answer, though... whee But that's where the argument begins...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:54 pm
It bothers me that they're in horrible situations, too. I just firmly believe that killing someone because of a bad situation isn't the right answer. If that's all we can tell women to do when they're in a bad situation, what kind of country are we? "I know your life sucks, but kill your child and keep on living it, we don't want to help make it better."
I like the argument, "They're Christians or Muslims." That makes me giggle.
Q. What would have happened if Mary had taken Plan B?
A. It doesn't matter, lady, because you got fired from John Edwards' campaign for disrespecting religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:07 pm
but really, to just throw this tidbit in there, if god asks you to bear the messiah, you're gonna do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
