Wow!! Good thing I'm not a parent! I'd find this to be way too difficult a decision. Give my daughter a death sentence for sexual activity or let her be human? Tough one. This is another example of the way that religion can completely twist one's morals. The only thing stopping these wackos from running out to protect their daughters, whom they presumably love, from dying of cancer is the warped idea that premarital sex might damn their souls for eternity.

This ridiculously unfounded idea actually leads these people to the conclusion that fear of cancer might help to protect their daughters' souls for all eternity. There is no other context in which this could make sense. If you take away the mean, vindictive, unforgiving, imaginary sky spirit lurking in the shadows watching for any opportunity to damn a soul to hell, the decision can be seen for what it truly is, severe parental negligence.

Thank you Texas and New Mexico for leading the way on this. I wonder why California and New York are so uncharacteristically asleep at the wheel.

This is more big government interfering with people's private lives. Next they will tell what we can and can't do in the bedroom. This is a con by the big drug companies. Let us see Congress take away the drug companies power so we can have the freedom to purchase our drugs from Canada.

Erik,

You're certainly entitled to your viewpoint. I just hope it's self-consistent. Presumably, you are also against requiring vaccines of other kinds for children. Are you also against requiring some specific level of education for children? What about child safety seats for automobiles?

Just curious.

Scott,

It shows that you don't have children. When you do, then maybe you can talk about the decisions a parent has to make, from health, to education, to TV, to freedom, to sex.

When I got pregnant is when I started to get informed on all sorts of things concerning children. One of them was vaccination. After reading lots about it, both my husband and I opted for not vaccinating our child. My son is now 6 and he has NEVER gotten sick, other than the one or two day things that kids pick up at school and even those have been mild. Never took antibiotics for nothing, never had a throat or ear infection, rarely has a fever. Now it is time for him to vaccinate in order to travel internationally.

Now, regarding this particular vaccine. It has not been completely proved that it is effective and, of course, nobody knows if it causes harm, what the side effects are, etc. If I wasn't married and was sexually active, maybe I - as an adult weighing pros and cons - would take the vaccine. If I had a daughter, I would be more concerned about finding out what she is doing with her time, who she is having sex with and the possibility of pregnancy, mostly in a day and age in which abortion is going down extinction lane.

I don't believe in actions mandated by government. However, vaccinating the masses is a life-saver for the masses. If individuals want to skip the vaccines, then the risk is on him or her, not the masses. Freedom not to use this vaccine should be allowed as it is allowed for other kinds of vaccines. Provided we parents are still allowed to chose, then it is fine. But if mandatory means really mandatory, then I have a problem with it.

Parents, it is time to actively parent your children! A fence may keep them in, but if you are not looking, they may jump it and run away.

Mar

Scott talks like one that supports the marriage amendments, the federal government telling people what to do in the bedroom. I agree, the government is too involved in people's private lives.

Oh hell no!!!! I am against people making important decisions for others based on warped religious immorality.

If you assure me that there are valid health reasons to avoid the vaccine, I’ll agree with your conclusion.

I was under the impression that this had similar, though less severe, morals to parents refusing to give diabetic children insulin because it is against their religions.

As for my views on marriage, just google “Misanthropic Scott” to find my posts on this and other blogs if you’d like to learn my opinions. I believe very strongly that all people should have the right to marriage. Any people that love each other and want the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage should be able to get that. If there’s a constitutional amendment for marriage, let it be to proclaim all people equal in this and every other regard.

If there were a case where the religion of the parent were harming the child, as in the case with refusing medical treatment for someone far too young to be making such a decision for themselves, I would step in to prevent child abuse. Yes, I have heard of such cases. I assure you as a diabetic, that death from untreated diabetes would be neither quick nor painless and is highly preventable through tried and proven treatment.

What I had heard about this particular vaccine was that it could save millions of lives. I had also heard that some religious organizations were opposed to it for the same reason that they oppose condom distribution in schools despite the lives saved. If this is the case, I would say that parents should not be able to kill their children because of their own religious beliefs. Once the children are old enough, they can make decisions based on their own beliefs. But, let’s at least get them to that age.

The real problem with this serum is that it doesn't attack a high-probability vector, it hasn't been significantly lab-tested, and it has the potential to cause sterility, yet everyone seems to think that it's appropriate to mandate its use on kids.

A friend (who is a nurse) made a point that her child will never get this serum until(and unless) it has been much more thoroughly tested. She and her husband are certainly not "no premarital sex at all costs" types, either.

Incidentally, she works in a Texas children's hospital and has had much more access to pre-release documentation for this serum than is generally available.

Just something to think about, before jerking that knee.

Gov. Richardson in New Mexico vetoed the bill for mandatory vaccination, but passed a bill making the vaccine available to all for free via Public Health and school-based clinics. Not everyone who opposed the law (vaccine required for school entry) were from the Christian right. Some of us opposed it because the lobbying by Merck was for financial gain. They pretend to care most about health, but pharmaceutical companies serve to make billions from such laws. For the record, I am a parent and took my daughter in for the shot as soon as it became available.

I wonder if anyone remembers the drug of the 1960's called Thalidomide. It was prescribed to expecting mothers to help with morning sickness. After these babies were born with birth defects it was banned. My 11 year old daughter will not be getting this vaccine. I worry for a whole generation of young girls who grow up, get married, dream of having a family and then find out this life saving vaccine made them sterile. Perhaps it should have been tested on a control group first to see what will happen to these girls in the future. My daughter will not be a guinnea pig. Perhaps that is why they are not vaccinating boys. I did read on the CDC website that it has not been proved safe for boys yet.

good interesting

Thank you very much for this information.