Page 1 of 1
 [ 5 replies ] 

Permanent LinkPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:28 am 
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/health/ ... 07,00.html


http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/vac ... _girls.htm


The drug prostitution firms of the State have found a new way to make some money. In Texas they just announced that they will be making it mandatory for 11 and 12 year old girls to get a 3 part shot that will prevent them from getting the human papillomavirus. (Human Pap is a sexually transmitted disease)

Though this virus can be a health threat to woman who have sex and it can lead to cervical cancer, it should be up to the parents or the girls themselves to choose to get this shot, they should not be forced under state laws to do so. There are a high percentage of sexually active adults who have human papillomavirus. It's primarily harmless to men, but can be cause devastating cervical cancer for woman.

I think it's great that the drug companies have found a way to make money and possibly save lives, provided that we don't find out in 10 years this drug is responsible for other complications, just like thalidomide was. The State however in no way shape or form should be stepping in and telling parents that they have to get their 11 and 12 year old daughters inoculated with this 3 part STD shot. (The drug is approved for girls as young as 9 years old.)


When will the state stop superseding the rights of parents and telling them what to do with their children? I find it outrageous that they want to force school age girls to get these STD shots. I think parents should object on the grounds that it's sexually discriminatory and when they come out with a shot for boys then we can talk, although I would still object to having this fostered on school age children without choice. Personally I don't think the state should be telling parents what to do with their children at 11 and 12 regarding possible future sexually transmitted diseases.

I think the shots are a great idea, but just like the choice of going on the pill or other contraceptives it should not be a forced choice. The government is trying to draw comparisons of this 3 part shot for STD to just like getting your kids inoculated for polio. Polio is communicable via everyday contact which can often not be controlled or prevented. Catching Human Pap is another story. I guarantee you if your 11 or 12 year has human pap is will not be because someone sneezed on them.

I don't see these preventative measure as necessary, I do think that the drug should be available on demand, and when women go in for birth control the suggestion should be made to them, or girls could be taught about this as part of their sex ed classes and then make the choice about what they want to do with their bodies, but to be forced to have this shot is outrageous, and I would hope if any parents were forced to have their daughters get this shot, they would protest that it was discriminatory and unnecessary until at least a later date and time.

The only thing I see the government trying to do in this case is proactively line their pockets, and ensure that their friends in the drug industry have a future supply of customers. Much like any other pill pusher or dealer, they seem to lack any moral or ethical considerations, and they don't care that the young and vulnerable might be affected in an adverse way because of this.

How many young girls might think because they have this shot for one STD, that they are protected from other STD's? How many might think this is a substitute for the pill and go and get pregnant? How many might feel compelled to have sex after getting this shot because the state has told them that they will someday be sexually active, and therefore they must take this STD shot at ages 11 and 12. What does getting a pre-emptive shot for an STD do psychologically and emotionally to a girl that age? How does it affect her future decisions about sex? Sex education is difficult enough for children that age, much less the government setting in and forcing their views and values on these children and their parents.

The other thing about the vaccine not be reported is the fact that it does not protect against all forms of human pap virus. So your young daughter(s) could be forced to go through this for nothing, they could walk away thinking that they are protected against all forms of the human pap virus and this is simply not the case. http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

Woman over 18 are not being forced to take the vaccine? Maybe because woman over 18 can not be forced to have others agenda's foisted on them the same way a young girl can be.

I think if you live in Texas, it might be a good idea to write to your local constituents and ask them what they are thinking. In fact wherever you live, it might no be a bad idea to preemptive write to your local member of wherever and tell them what you think of this new initiative that might be coming to a town, city, country near you and your prepubescent daughter(s).


 Profile  
 


Comments
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Permanent LinkPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:45 am 

Are you also against childhood vaccinations? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

_________________
Image
"I always say that if, at a given time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and that we were going against abortion, that we were going against gay marriage, that we were moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think of wanting to make Quebec a country." Justin Trudeau


Permanent LinkPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:53 am 

Quote:
I think parents should object on the grounds that it's sexually discriminatory and when they come out with a shot for boys then we can talk,

A preventative for boys has been around for thousands of years. Cervical cancer is virtually unknown in Jewish women. ;)

Quote:
I do think that the drug should be available on demand, and when women go in for birth control the suggestion should be made to them,

It could well be too late by then.

Quote:
How many young girls might think because they have this shot for one STD, that they are protected from other STD's? How many might think this is a substitute for the pill and go and get pregnant? How many might feel compelled to have sex after getting this shot because the state has told them that they will someday be sexually active, and therefore they must take this STD shot at ages 11 and 12.

How many? Maybe a couple of really stupid ones. :roll:

I've read about this vaccine and would definitely give permission for my daughter to have it. Here in Canada, it would probably be recommended, but not mandatory, just like the other vaccinations.


Permanent LinkPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:36 am 

[quote="RUEZ"]Are you also against childhood vaccinations? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.[/quote]

See again just like I stated in the article, this is not about a childhood vaccination, the drug pimps want it to seem that way, but I really disagree.

Polio, chickpox, and measles are childhood diseases that are easily communicable and children should be protected, however we are not talking about an everyday communicable disease.

Second we are not talking about choice here, we are talking about forced vaccinations, on young girls at a really critical time in their decision making processes, when things are changing and they are learning about things, such as their new found bodies, and yes possibly sex, this might just add more confusion to the issue.

Also this vaccine has not had enough testing where I would feel comfortable letting a 9-12 year old take this. We just don't know what the psycho-social ramifications would be on girls that age, it's not the same as them having a polio shot, which is needful and life saving. Not only will this not protect them from all forms of human pap, but it's might leave them with several false impressions.

My main concern is this is being forced and no choice is being given and that is just wrong.


Permanent LinkPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:45 am 

[quote="lily"][Cervical cancer is virtually unknown in Jewish women. ;)[/quote]

See there are forms of prevention that do work. :wink:


[quote="lily"]
Quote:
I do think that the drug should be available on demand, and when women go in for birth control the suggestion should be made to them,

It could well be too late by then. [/quote]

Oh but that is why I think this STD shot should be mentioned with sex ed, and then girls can decide if they want to take the shot or not. Teach them about it in sex ed, and then set up a private clinic so that they can do it with their friends, it's their lives and their futures and such a choice should be left up to them.


[quote="lily"]
Quote:
How many young girls might think because they have this shot for one STD, that they are protected from other STD's? How many might think this is a substitute for the pill and go and get pregnant? How many might feel compelled to have sex after getting this shot because the state has told them that they will someday be sexually active, and therefore they must take this STD shot at ages 11 and 12.

How many? Maybe a couple of really stupid ones. :roll:[/quote]

The problem is at that age, do you know all the misinformation that is out there? This might well cause boys to put more pressure on girls for sex going, you got that STD shot, you are good to go, etc.

[quote="lily"]
I've read about this vaccine and would definitely give permission for my daughter to have it. Here in Canada, it would probably be recommended, but not mandatory, just like the other vaccinations.[/quote]

See if the article was about getting permission from parents and the girls themselves I would have no problem, but the article is about them being forced to do so, it's going to be mandatory, and in some cases they are saying that you might not be able to go to school if you have not had your STD shot. This is rediculous and unnesscary. If you don't have your polio shot, you risk infecting other kids, if you don't get your STD shot at 9,10,11,12 you don't really risk casually infecting anyone, there is a huge difference.

I get the prevention message, but this is mandatory drugging without consent and that is the problem I have with this. I also deeply worry about the social impact and pressures this could put on very young girls. I know things in grade 5, 6, and 7 have changed, but they have not changed that much, have they?


Permanent LinkPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:52 am 

Let me just restate my main points.

Just like any drug dealer, the drug companies are targeting the young and volnerable so that they can have a life time of customers. Can you imagine if your neighbourhood drug dealer had it this easy?

This STD shot will not stop all forms of human pap. Is it necessary, no, not all girls will require this, and so it should be a choice, not a mandatory sentance.

The thing about this is it's gender discriminatory, why should girls have to take this and not boys? Personally I don't think either should be forced to take this, it should be a choice, an add on lesson in sex ed, and then let them make the chioce.

Also do we know how this will be interpreted by girls in that age bracket, emotionally and psychologically? No matter what you say it will be discussed amougst them, not as taking a cancer shot, but as an STD shot, because that is what it is.

This is not really a cancer drug, it's an STD shot.

a) You have young girls who will get this shot and not worry about human pap anymore. They might not go for yearly testing, and in 10 years, you might have more people dying of cervical cancer than we do now, becasue it gives them the faulse impression that they are good to go for all forms of human pap and they just are not.

b) Will they think that this also works on other forms of STD, and therefore make less cautious future decisions?

c) Will this encourage young girls to start having sex earlier. Knowing that the State has giving you an assumptive STD shot, assumeing that you will have sex someday, will this cause girls to have sex earlier? Eg. Will they precieve it the same as if their parents put them on the pill?

d) At that age will they mistake it for some kind of birth control and therefore have unprotected sex and therefore have skyrocketing rates of young pregnant females?

e) What is the long term emotional and psychological affects of this on an none consenting pre-pubesent girl? No studies or research were done on this aspect to determine how it will affect them, how will they view themselves in light of this.

It's such a difficult time for girls and changes happening to them and their bodies, and the government comes in, slams them down and says, we know you are going to have sex, and likely get this STD, here is your free STD on me. What kind of message does that send to them and their peers, and what kind of social pressures will this now create in areas where this is made mandatory?

None of these things are being looked into, but the government knows what's best and away we go, well I just don't think that is good enough. Not when it comes to the health and well being of young girls.





 Page 1 of 1
 [ 5 replies ] 


 

Author

Blog: View Blog (284)

Archives
- July 2009
MJ makes sainthood
   Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:48 pm
Psi Ops
   Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:02 pm
A baiting we will go.
   Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:52 pm
Are informants stupid?
   Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:38 pm

+ June 2009
+ May 2009
+ April 2009
+ March 2009
+ February 2009
+ January 2009
+ December 2008
+ November 2008
+ October 2008
+ September 2008
+ August 2008
+ July 2008
+ June 2008
+ May 2008
+ April 2008
+ March 2008
+ February 2008
+ December 2007
+ November 2007
+ October 2007
+ September 2007
+ August 2007
+ July 2007
+ June 2007
+ May 2007
+ February 2007
+ January 2007
+ December 2006
+ November 2006
+ October 2006