1 in 4 teen girls has sexually transmitted disease

The word 'personally' and 'requiring' in the same sentence is pretty dumb.

Personally, I don't think the vaccine has been tested enough to give to anyone not part of a study. But, because it's such an epidemic, as you say, why don't we offer the vaccine without mandating it?

This is also another clear indication that abstience-ONLY education is not enough.  Abstinence should be taught as the best option but they should also be teaching about disease and pregnancy prevention too. 

Very scary indeed. A bunch of co-workers and I talked it over at lunch and pretty much came to the conclusion that the education on sex is just terrible. I was the youngest of the bunch and remember my school having trouble getting sex ed into the school due to people preaching abstinence should be the only thing taught as you shouldn't be having sex anyways (religious groups).

Abstinence is obviously the best way to avoid such things, but be realistic, it is simply not going to be that way for the vast majority of teens. Personally, I wish they would do more than just show demographics, perhaps break it down by areas of the country as well to be able to compare the common trends with the common teaching methods for the area. Sadly, I think the release of that kind of information would be against HIPPA.

Personally I think there is only one answer to sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy: Use a condom.

Careful how you use that word Personally, someone above may get upset at it.

And on the use of condoms and preventing STDs and pregnancy, condoms are not 100% effective against either.

Thanks for the smack there Jythier.  I guess there should be requirements for better education and article writing here at JU, no?

Oh, so you want to get personal too?

And please, educate yourself on the mandates.  While the vaccine is/was being required in Texas and other places there have been opt-out options in all cases so far so there is an ability to avoid getting vaccinated if the parents decide that they don't want to have their child vaccinated.

The mandates call for all young girls who were not opted out to get vaccinated.  In all likelyhood that means the vast majority of young girls will get vaccinated and even the girls whose parents do opt out for them will likely benefit by having the virus that can lead to cervical cancer stopped from transmission in the general population.

If you can opt-out then it's not really required, is it, Terp?

Smack #2.

All I'm saying, while being a smartass, is that 'personally' believing something is not a good enough reason to make it 'required' of everyone. But if you want it 'required' of your daughter, that's fine with me.

It is my understanding that not only was the vaccine not effective against every strand of HPV, but that HPV isn't the only cause of cervical cancer. They were billing it in the advertisements as a vaccine against cancer, which is untrue and leads to a false sense of security for these girls.

Also, it's yet another addition to the slippery slope saying that kids can do whatever they want sexually, and we'll just remove consequences for them. And if they can do whatever they want in this area without harm, they'll continue to do riskier and riskier behaviour, because people are driven to make mistakes so they can learn from them.

I most certainly do not think it should be mandatory. I also think that it isn't a school's responsibility to teach children about sex. I signed off on letting my 5th grader view "The Video" only because his father and I have already been talking to him about his body and about the facts of life.

It's my job to teach my daughter how to protect herself. If more parents made their kids feel more valued, it might change their influence on their friends and we might actually make some lasting changes. Requiring a shot is just going to lead to other problems down the road. It is treating a symptom and not the real problem.

That is true and the good parents are teaching their kids these things.  The problem is that there are so many parents that aren't.  I believe it is in the public interest to educate kids about these health issues at school. 

For me, what Jill said is right on.

We are so busy treating the externals, when we should be worrying more about the internals.  It's like putting a tiny bandage on a gaping hole.   

Why are these kids looking to "hook up" with another?    For many young girls could it be their father/daughter relationship is not what it should be?  Could it be that parents are just too busy or too self centered to care?   

I've seen firsthand how the school systems with Planned Parenthood on the premises actually ENCOURAGE the kids to engage in sex.  Heck, it's a business and our kids are paying the price.  They don't care about the kids.  That's a bunch of bunk.  Follow the money trail. 

I believe it all starts in the home.  Lining the kids up for shots is not the answer.  There is so much at stake involving the heart and the emotions that no shot can ever vaccinate for. 

We didn't have these STD's at this rate way back when.  It wasn't a problem when abstinence was expected.   It's only been since the schools took over the sex-education business we started having such problems.  Can we turn back now? 

Yes, but only one family at a time. 

So...25% of the girls I sit in class with, that I talk to, that live in the same building as me, that eat at the same dining hall as me are crawling with genital cooties?

That's a lovely thought.

~Zoo

Makes you want to fill out a survey and take blood samples before jumping in the sack, doesn't it?

hmmmmmm is this why they used to do (in the old days) blood tests before marriage? Boy nowadays that could open a whole can of worms if one of the partners is hiding something.

I read that it was used back in the old days because there were all sorts of misconceptions about blood types, etc. Could be a load of bull, but I swear I read that somewhere.



Sign me up for the program. Go ahead and test me.

no, I think you're in the ballpark. If I remember right it had to do with childbearing. They wanted to make sure the blood types were compatable for having children or somthing along that line. There were certain negative blood types that were not very conducive for having children.



Well since you're a Mormon.....you should be very squeaky clean.....  

You're in college, bud. It's probably up to 50-75%.

We have labs on campus, I can carry a kit around with me. Although you'd either have to be sneaky or have a really awkward conversation.

Sneaky:
"Hey, look over there!"
"Wha-? Ouch, what'd you do?"
"Nothing..."

Awkward conversation:
"Hey, mind if I get a blood sample really quick?"
"Uhh...why?"
"So I know you're not a filthy whore. ...hey, where ya going?"

Yeah...at least it won't burn when you pee.



I guess the boys in gradeschool had a point...girls are icky.

~Zoo

Who do you think the girls are getting the diseases from? Boys just can't get cervical cancer so they get a pass on this matter.

The girls are filthy whores and the guys are studs...right?

Naturally.   Heh, heh.

Well, I don't have sex with guys...so my point of view is a little skewed...sorry about that. :NOTSURE:

~Zoo

oh........grow up Zoo.........  

Virgin girls who waited until their wedding day to have sex can still get cervical cancer from the guy they married if their husband had multiple partners before marriage. His history before marriage can defile the marriage bed.....so it's not always about the girl messing around.

I don'T know the real numbers, but Condom are the only way to protect you against STDs in any way of effectiveness. And while they are not 100% perfect, condoms are one of the most effective contraceptions that exists, easy to use and cheap to buy. They SHOULD encouraged. The "abstinence" policy is simply a failure.

I don't think it's a failure at all. In my family I have three boys, now all in their twenties. Two abstained and one did not. One boy is 25 and is still waiting. We taught only abstinence. That's a 2/3 majority. I've seen it even higher in larger families who have contracted themselves to abstain until marriage.

The alternative is to give up on the kids and throw condoms at them expecting they are going to have sex anyhow. To me, that's lowering the bar and sets their forthcoming marriages up for a higher rate of failure.

Tell that to 1 teen girl in 4

What do you really care about, tell me? Do you care more about them not having sex before marriage, or do you care more about them not getting STDs?

JillUser posts:

Very well said JillUser.

Terpfan1980 writes:

I've been following the whether or not to mandate the HPV vaccine debate. It seems to me the effectiveness of the vaccine and it's negative side effects is a most important consideration.

One report from World Net Daily, Oct. 6, 2007, was headlined 8 MORE deaths connected to HPV Vaccine, Adverse reactions from Gardasil number in the thousands.

Here's a cut and paste from the article:


Officials with the Abstinence Clearinghouse noted in a position paper that groups including the Texas Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have come out publicly against mandatory vaccination.

"The reasoning of these medical associations is clear. They are not opposed to medical progress, and certainly support all efforts to combat life-threatening diseases. The problem, as these organizations see it, lies in the fact that the drug only went through three and a half years of testing, leaving the medical community somewhat in the dark as to what serious adverse effects might result in the long term," the group said.

"Along with the potential of serious adverse effects is the question of efficacy. There is evidence that after approximately four years, the vaccine's potency significantly declines. The long-term value of the vaccine has yet to be determined; if it wears off within six years, will girls and women need to repeat the battery of injections they originally received?" the organization wondered.

Michigan was the first state to introduce a plan to require the vaccine to be given to young girls, but the proposal failed. Ohio also considered a failed plan in 2006.

Then in 2007, after Merck's aggressive lobbying campaign and contributions to Women in Government, lawmakers in at least 39 states and the District of Columbia worked on sponsoring such plans.