1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Questionable Decision

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Terry_Herrington, Feb 3, 2007.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it’s not assuming that at all. If you want to know the answer to that question, ask the people who object for the reason I gave. (Please don’t shift gears midstream here. I was talking about one specific objection that I have heard. I was not speaking of any other objections.)

    Sex is not a public health issue. Public health issues are those that have the ability to affect the population generally. STDs normally affect only those who participate.
    Sarcasm is obviously lost on you. I don’t know of any correlation. I was comparing two arguments.
    I think you need years and years of tests before making something mandatory. What will this vaccine do to the recipient in 20 years, when she is 35? Don’t you think we should know before mandating it? If someone wants to be a guinea pig, then let them. But don’t make people be guinea pigs.

    I think vaccines for deadly diseases with no cure that are transmitted through normal activities could be mandated, so long as there is an option to opt out for religious reasons. Something like this should not be mandated.
     
  2. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I thought there had been federal court rulings (though I can't name them) upholding mandatory vaccinations for school children for polio and smallpox, even if parents objected on religious grounds. Either that's not true, or this is somehow illogically different.
     
  3. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    BTW, Perry is in considerable trouble with his fellow Republicans on this issue. Several bills have been introduced in the Legislature to compell him to rescind the order, and one would forbid the state from making it compulsory in order to attend school.

    The Speaker of the House back away from it yesterday, saying he would let the House members decide. Craddick has no moral backbone, and he was almost overthrown as Speaker recently.

    Last thing he wants is Gov. Froot Loop sending him another controversy.
     
  4. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O. Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    11,384
    Likes Received:
    944
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As a teacher, I know that it's mandatory to have vaccinations for certain illnesses that are highly contagious and deadly before you enter kindergarten. I don't teach kindegarten, so I can't tell you what they all are, but I do know that it's because these potentially fatal illnesses are easily spread through casual contact. These vaccinations are preventing school children from spreading disease to each other from casual touching, such as drinking after each other and coughing each other.

    With HPV only being spread through sexual contact and the virus itself not being the actual killer, the parents are given an option. This vaccination is not to prevent school age children from each other. It's to protect school age girls from developing cancer.

    That's the difference that I see.

    Again, I am, for now, not in favor of a mandatory HPV vaccine.

     
  5. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Smallpox is no longer required; that has been successfully irradicated worldwide.

    The more I read about this new vaccine, the less I'm inclined towards it being mandatory. I do think it should be available and subsidized, however.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In the 1950s, the scourge of polio, at it's peak, infected about 58,000 children. Polio vaccinations became mandatory. Many other innoculations are also now required to enter school.

    HPV infects 50% of the females that are sexually active. In 2006, about 28,000 of those females were infected with some type of cervical cancer. Close to 10,000 of those cases were sever and 3700 females died of the disease.

    If parents have all the pertinent facts and can make an informed decision, I see no reason to make it mandatory. On the other hand, mandatory innoculations are hardly unique.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    With what?
     
  8. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Is it safe???

    Washington, D.C. - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to just say "no" on June 29 to recommending "universal use" of Merck's Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls. NVIC maintains that Merck's clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.
    "Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials," said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. "Merck's pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls."


    <snip>


    "There is too little long term safety and efficacy data, especially in young girls, and too little labeling information on contraindications for the CDC to recommend Gardasil for universal use, which is a signal for states to mandate it," said Fisher. "Nobody at Merck, the CDC or FDA know if the injection of Gardasil into all pre-teen girls - especially simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine - will make some of them more likely to develop arthritis or other inflammatory autoimmune and brain disorders as teenagers and adults. With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group."


    SOURCE
     
  9. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    The point is, Merck expected a windfall with this vaccine, but it didn't materialize. But with their tight connections to Gov. Perry, they figured that they could legally force people to buy the vaccine regardless of cost.

    Today, even more Texas legislators are lining up against this obvious political pay-off.
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Taxpayer funds - poor girls deserve as much protection from cancer as rich girls. And public health issue.
     
  11. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    All those little girls are equal in the eyes of the law. The state can coerce them all into being injected with what ever it mandates. Good or bad.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that the government's job is to be involved in health care. I think the protection from this kind of cancer is "Don't have sex with people who have HPV." That is a full proof protection from this. It will work much better than a vaccine, and we know what the long term affects are. It does not cost anything and increases the possibility of a great future.

    I don't think people are animals driven by an irresistable urge to have sex. And I don't think young girls should be treated as if they are.
     
  13. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Pastor Larry - While I agree with you, I AM concerned about my daughter's health in the future. What if their husbands came to Christ after they were sexually active? I know that they have been forgiven but they might not have been healed of HPV and all it takes is one exposure to get it. I do not want my daughters to lose their fertility, parts of their bodies or their life to something that could have been prevented.

    As I said, I'm not getting my girls the vaccine. There's too many issues with it at this point to know if it's safe or not (see a much earlier post about some of the side effects), and I'm not letting my girls be guinea pigs. BUT, if it is ever finally proven fully safe, I'd be encouraging them to get it.

    This is such a tough vaccine to think about. It IS a sexually transmitted disease and you will not get it if you do not have sex but not everyone is brought up in a Christian home with Godly values - and even those who do, do not always make the wisest choices. To be able to save lives, I think it's a wonderful thing - but I honestly do not trust the government or the drug companies to always have OUR best interests in mind. I want to see the long-term effects before I can make an informed decision.
     
Loading...