Decius wrote:

You're back to arguments that have to do with vaccination in general and not this specific vaccine...

It's almost as if you didn't even read what I said about my ideology about airborne communicable diseases. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to this HPV vaccine.

Thats a straw man. No one chooses to get STDs, and with one exception, the STDs we have today have been a part of human society for a long time. Nearly everybody has sex at some point in their lives. Sex spreads this illness. People rarely make a concious decision to contract it. Its not like they sat down and decided "I'm going to get HPV today." Talking about it as if its something that people have control over is silly.

Following that line of reasoning, if you have sex and you impregnate or are impregnated, you did not choose to have a child if you did not make a conscious decision to do so. Should we start mandating that kids take birth control so they are protected from unwanted pregnancy?

Some people accept that sex can have consequences and accept the personal responsiblity for their choice. Contracting a sexually transmitted disease is one such risk. There are many preventative measures that can be employed to curb the risks. You can define "risks" to mean whatever you want, whether it be unwanted disease or pregnancy.

I don't think my original statement was really a straw man, it was just an example. I wasn't taking any of your arguement and twisting it. If anything, the preceding two paragraphs may be a slight straw man, but I tend to think of it as more of an analogy.

The only possible interpretation I can reach is that you are advocating sexual abstinence as an alternative to vaccination for STDs. Among a myriad of objections I'd offer that wouldn't be as effective.

I am not advocating ANY alternative to vaccination for STDs! I am saying I do not believe this is a public health crisis that required Texas Governor Rick Perry to issue an Executive Order to make it happen by next year.

No, its simply the mechanism through which we manage public health.

If you manage something through public health, that implies there is a public health crisis. I have not seen any compelling evidence that HPV is a public health crisis that is affecting the learning experience of a majority of children in school. What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

To believe otherwise is to say you want to pre-emptively stamp out STDs just because "It's the right thing to do," not because of any specific need as it pertains to the public school system.

Do you think its wrong for the government to require people who work with food to wash their hands? Isn't it a matter of personal choice? Couldn't you decide not to eat at places that don't have an internal hand washing requirement for their staff? Why not let the free market decide? Who needs to spend tax dollars on restaurant inspectors!?

Do you have a specific rebuttal or just more loaded questions?

You are intentionally sidestepping my point. People make all kinds of personal choices that lead to unexpected medical problems that are covered by health insurance. For example, people who climb trees sometimes fall out of them. People who ride bicycles sometimes have accidents.

Your point was addressed, not sidestepped. You brought up auto accidents, and I said that's what I have auto insurance for. I said that is a bad analogy. I will consider your statement now as tacit acknowledgement that you agree the analogy did not hold.

I previously stated that "insurance should be for unexpected illnesses, not planned life events." Your further statements are just examples of exactly what I said about insurance being there for accidents.

Where I differ in opinion is that I don't think contracting an STD or becoming pregnant are accidents. "I don't know what happened, one minute we're sitting on the couch, the next thing I know we were naked and fucking!" That's a lot different than falling out of a tree or crashing on your bicycle.

I simply don't find your insistance compelling. I don't have a problem with this.

It's fairly simple. Within the context of private insurance, why should I be required to subsidize someone elses's expenses for their planned pregnancy? It was not an accident, they chose it. Why should they not shoulder the costs for their choice? The answer today is because, well, the Nanny State says so!

It's similar to the arguement I have with respect to my tax dollars funding public education. I do not have children. Why should I pay for schools? I don't use that service. When I have children and need that service, that's when I should pay for it.

Why do you get angry about the idea that you're funding social insitutions that occaisonally help people?

It depends on what the "help" is. I don't have a problem helping rape victims, victims of famine, floods, natural disasters, certain types of communicable diseases that could not generally have been prevented (like MMR.) I won't list the whole thing, but I understand the reason behind some social institutions being funded with my tax dollars. It's the classic debate about who pays for R&D on making life better for everyone, it's a big can of worms, and I'm not going there, suffice to say I am not against paying some debts to society.

But just as you do not find my insistance compelling, I am yet to be convinced that sixth graders should be REQUIRED to be vaccinated for STDs as a prerequisite to attending public schools. If I discover evidence that it is a public health crisis that is spreading like wildfire in schools and adversely affecting the learning experience of many children, I might change my mind. I express sincere doubt that will ever be the case though.

The first time I heard about this, which was oh, two or three days ago when I read it on Drudge Report, my jaw dropped. I thought, what the hell is going on? This is an outrage!

Even though that is my personal opinion, it is interesting, and in a way, comforting to know there are people that feel this is a great idea. It means we are all competing with our ideas. Competition is a good thing.

It is telling that Governor Perry issued this as an Executive Order. I believe the People should have had a say on this instead of being dictated to by someone who has been directly and indirectly influenced by the very company who will supply the vaccines. That is the frame within the frame of this debate that I also have in the back of my head. But you know me, I'm just a conspiracy theorist. I'm sure Governor Perry is a fine upstanding man who would never let Merck, influence his decision making.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls