|
|
#31
02-01-2007, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the state be allowed to force little girls to get STD vacines? Link Stu [/ QUOTE ] Why does it matter if the disease is sexually transmitted? [/ QUOTE ] Because if it is sexually transmitted, one can choose not to be exposed to it (or choose not to spread it); unlike, for example, a disease that may be caught by someone coughing in one's face. [/ QUOTE ] Choices like not wearing slutty clothes so you aren't raped. 
|
|
#32
02-01-2007, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the OP is pro-cancer. [/ QUOTE ] Random digression (this reminds me of a great story): Two of my friends and I were hanging out and drinking with a few girls back in college (trying to get with them obv), one of whom asks, "Do any of you guys want to donate to XXXXX cancer fund?", and my friend responds with, "No, I'm pro-cancer actually," followed by a rant about how it is good population control. The girl, whose father had just died of cancer, stormed out with her friends never to return. Worst. Game. Ever... but hilarious nonetheless.
|
|
#34
02-01-2007, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: Sounds like the OP is pro-cancer. Random digression (this reminds me of a great story): Two of my friends and I were hanging out and drinking with a few girls back in college (trying to get with them obv), one of whom asks, "Do any of you guys want to donate to XXXXX cancer fund?", and my friend responds with, "No, I'm pro-cancer actually," followed by a rant about how it is good population control. The girl, whose father had just died of cancer, stormed out with her friends never to return. Worst. Game. Ever... but hilarious nonetheless. [/ QUOTE ] Not to be alarmist, but vaccines in the recent past were shown to be contaminated with a cancer causing virus or retrovirus or something. This may be the best argument against vaccines, the unknown cost. We know about mercury and biocontamination and stuff and it's bad. What don't we know about?
|
|
#35
02-01-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the state be allowed to force little girls to get STD vacines? Link Stu [/ QUOTE ] Why does it matter if the disease is sexually transmitted? [/ QUOTE ] Because if it is sexually transmitted, one can choose not to be exposed to it (or choose not to spread it); unlike, for example, a disease that may be caught by someone coughing in one's face. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I still don't get it. Lets say we could give everyone a vaccine against HIV, that was 100% effective and had no side effects, but you was only effective it if you gave it to infants. We shouldn't use it?
|
|
#36
02-01-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I still don't get it. Lets say we could give everyone a vaccine against HIV, that was 100% effective and had no side effects, but you was only effective it if you gave it to infants. We shouldn't use it? [/ QUOTE ] The drug companies lobbied for a very similiar thing, hepB vaccine to infants, the only difference from your scenario was that a) it had side effects b) not 100% c) it could be given later in life. Let's face it, it's more about money and marketing than about public health. And there's no free lunch. There is always a cost/benefit analysis to be done.
|
|
#37
02-01-2007, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the state be allowed to force little girls to get STD vacines? Link Stu [/ QUOTE ] Why does it matter if the disease is sexually transmitted? [/ QUOTE ] Because if it is sexually transmitted, one can choose not to be exposed to it (or choose not to spread it); unlike, for example, a disease that may be caught by someone coughing in one's face. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I still don't get it. Lets say we could give everyone a vaccine against HIV, that was 100% effective and had no side effects, but you was only effective it if you gave it to infants. We shouldn't use it? [/ QUOTE ] Well, I'm not aware of any vaccine that is both 100% effective and 100% risk-free (many, or maybe all, vaccines have risks of adverse effects). If someone (not an infant, obviously) has decided that if they ever engage in sex it will be only with a committed, special partner, then I see near zero value for that person to have a vaccine that prevents STD's. Yet there would be a risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. For such persons the vaccine would be a bad bet. Now add the state using its force to make people take the vaccine, and I think you will see why I answered no to the original question in this thread.
|
|
#38
02-02-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
The Gardasil vaccine will clearly eliminate disease and degradation in the future. [ QUOTE ] "It's for your own good, trust us!" [/ QUOTE ] And, a person mocking me on an internet forum is someone I can trust? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not asking (or forcing) you to put any trust in me.
|
|
#39
02-02-2007, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the state be allowed to force little girls to get STD vacines? Link Stu [/ QUOTE ] Why does it matter if the disease is sexually transmitted? [/ QUOTE ] Because if it is sexually transmitted, one can choose not to be exposed to it (or choose not to spread it); unlike, for example, a disease that may be caught by someone coughing in one's face. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I still don't get it. Lets say we could give everyone a vaccine against HIV, that was 100% effective and had no side effects, but you was only effective it if you gave it to infants. We shouldn't use it? [/ QUOTE ] Well, I'm not aware of any vaccine that is both 100% effective and 100% risk-free (many, or maybe all, vaccines have risks of adverse effects). If someone (not an infant, obviously) has decided that if they ever engage in sex it will be only with a committed, special partner, then I see near zero value for that person to have a vaccine that prevents STD's. Yet there would be a risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. For such persons the vaccine would be a bad bet. Now add the state using its force to make people take the vaccine, and I think you will see why I answered no to the original question in this thread. [/ QUOTE ] I do see your point. I just think HPV is a virus that is a lot different from most STD's. Anyone that has had 2-3 sexual partners, or who's partners have had 2-3 sexual partners is very likely to have HPV (I think 75% of the women in the U.S. have it). It is usually asyptomatic, or mild symptoms, and the main adverse affects are cervical cancer of a certain % that are unlucky enough to have certain type of HPV virus. In addition it is not prevented by condom usage. So I agree with what has been said previously that obviously this should come down to cost vs benefit, but I think that the argument that this is a behavior related disease, while somewhat true, this is a widespread virus that most women get through non-risky or promiscuous sexual behavior.
|
|
#40
02-02-2007, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............
If someone (not an infant, obviously) has decided that if they ever engage in sex it will be only with a committed, special partner, then I see near zero value for that person to have a vaccine that prevents STD's. I think that's fair. Both of them should be exempt if the US decided to implement such a policy.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
