Read. Discuss.

by **Guiscard** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:04 pm

In a Gerzan-esque sensationalist Christian-bashing militant Atheist fit of rage (lets get that out the way at the start) I present to you this article:

US conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls

Read. Discuss.

I mean, come on Cons get your act together!

edit: Link fixed...

by **Aegnor** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:06 pm

Fix that link please

by **FRSmk3** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:06 pm

I think it's funnier the way it is now.

by **Guilty_Biscuit** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:06 pm

That link is tosh. But I think I know what you are talking about and it is sick to put a block on that.

by **Stopper** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:06 pm

Yes, get your act together! :lol:

EDIT: Fastposted. I've got to get my act together.

by **Guiscard** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:08 pm

I can't even post a sensationalist diatribe right! Gerzan still pwns me...

(link fixed)

by **Aegnor** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:12 pm

Well I don't have much to say. Why should the US congress even bother to shove its nose in such private matters? Shouldn't every mother or young girl make that decision on their on?

by **hecter** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:13 pm

What was the link before?

by **Guiscard** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:14 pm

hecter wrote:What was the link before?

porns...

by **Dancing Mustard** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:16 pm

Aegnor wrote:Well I don't have much to say. Why should the US congress even bother to shove its nose in such private matters? Shouldn't every mother or young girl make that decision on their on?

Word. Up.

by **Stopper** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:16 pm

Article wrote:Some conservative groups complain that by cutting the risk of catching a sexually-transmitted disease, the vaccine would encourage sexual activity in young girls.

Can't imagine your average girl would decide whether or not to have sex based on whether she'd had the vaccine... Explain yourselves, Religious Rightists!

by **hecter** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:17 pm

Guiscard wrote:
hecter wrote:What was the link before?

porns...

Why did you have porn website url copied?

by **Guiscard** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:18 pm

hecter wrote:Why did you have porn website url copied?

To paste it in my address bar.

by **Aegnor** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:18 pm

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but Hecter wtf has happened to your posts?

by **got tonkaed** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:18 pm

This is a pretty sad article. In an attempt to not be rash i will simply say, it would quite possible do a number of people a great service if some people were not so worried that their sons or daughters may wish to have sex. If you dont want your child to have sex, try to raise them with values that encourage greater caution...ultimatly your children will make their own choices. However, to block a bill such as this, which could help save lives, is pretty disappointing. Certainly the first thing that comes to my mind when thinking about sex is the possiblity that a girl may get cervical cancer..... :roll:

, if your child needed this to decide to have sex, then clearly the writing was on the wall so to speak.

This ranks up there with the abstinence only sex education and abstinence treatements in Africa to fight Aids as some of the more recent examples of how a paranoia over sexuality only endangers human life, the sancitity of which conservatives claim to protect, while going out of their way to put it at risk.

by **hecter** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:19 pm

Aegnor wrote:Not wanting to hijack the thread, but Hecter wtf has happened to your posts?

AK deleted Spamalot.

by **Guilty_Biscuit** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:20 pm

I love the reasoning that protecting girls from an STD is bad because it will encourge sexual activity.

How?

There is not going to be an increase in these girls having sex just because they are now protected against human papillomavirus - a disease I'm sure NONE OF THEM EVEN KNEW ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I can see the conversations now...

Jane: Hey - we're proteced against human papillomavirus, now we can go get laid!
Mary: Huh? What is human papillomavirus anyway?
Jane: I dunno, you get it from too much shagging. But we're immune now so we can sleep around.
Mary: We can still get pregnant, get AIDs, crabs, herpes, chlaymidya, gohnarrea or any number of other STDs.
Jane: Oh yeah, well we can use a condom.
Mary: We could have done that before. And we'll still get called sluts.
Jane: Yeah, kk, let's go smoke.
Mary: Cool!

by **Aegnor** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:20 pm

hecter wrote:
Aegnor wrote:Not wanting to hijack the thread, but Hecter wtf has happened to your posts?

AK deleted Spamalot.

Oh my.. Sorry to hear that bud.

by **Stopper** on Tue May 15, 2007 4:20 pm

got tonkaed wrote:This ranks up there with the abstinence only sex education and abstinence treatements in Africa to fight Aids as some of the more recent examples of how a paranoia over sexuality only endangers human life, the sancitity of which conservatives claim to protect, while going out of their way to put it at risk.

QFT, as they seem to say. (And also in a, probably vain, attempt to stop it getting buried under a mound of spam.)

by **btownmeggy** on Tue May 15, 2007 5:49 pm

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about Texas's governor from this article. Rick Perry (whom I discuss at some length here) only signed the order because his mother-in-law is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine.

by **Backglass** on Tue May 15, 2007 8:06 pm

I have never understood the anti-vaccine argument either.

Anyone who would intentionally put their child at risk for something like this is just ignorant. A woman could get it from a boyfriend in college...a rape...or even on her virgin wedding night from her lawfully married christian husband who never realized he had it. Farfetched? I know a woman personally who has been married for a few years now, and just learned her husband has it. He hid it from her (who knows why) and now she most likely has it as well and is now at risk. She wasn't sleeping around...and I'll bet she now wishes HER parents had the option back in the day.

There are a thousand good reasons for all women to get it and one very piss poor excuse not to. Both my girls will be getting it along with all their other scheduled vaccinations...and I guarantee it wont make them want to run out and have sex....but it will protect them for life from something I (and they) would rather they not have.

by **Stopper** on Wed May 16, 2007 2:34 am

btownmeggy wrote:I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about Texas's governor from this article. Rick Perry (whom I discuss at some length here) only signed the order because his mother-in-law is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine.

It's nice to see that some politicians still believe in Family Values.

Read. Discuss.

Read. Discuss.

Who is online