First you are not against vaccinations in general. Then you proceed to make a serious of passionate arguments against them in general.

You obviously have not paid serious attention to my position. You paint this as if it is a black and white issue. Nothing is black and white. For example, I stated I approve of mandatory vaccination for measles. Measles, by its very nature, is highly infectious. Left unchecked, measles can spread so rapidly that it would cause an epidemic in short order. It has the potential to disrupt the infrastructure of schools, hospitals, and the community in general. If measles broke out at a large school or college, think about the lost time and productivity as community hospitals and health clinics were inundated with trying to deal with it. Parents that would have to leave work. The quarantine that would be required. For these reasons, measles is a disease we vaccinate for.

HPV is not in the same league as it relates to the impact on public health. And cervical cancer is definately not in that league. Therefore, I am against mandatory vaccination for HPV. The Executive Order that is now in effect in Texas is worded to be vaccination for cervical cancer.

The debate is not about whether it is a good idea to try preventing cervical cancer or not. It is, should it be mandatory? I contend that it should not be mandatory, no more than it should be mandatory to be vaccinated for every conceivable disease known to man.

For example, I can receive a vaccine today for malaria. I choose not to because there is no compelling public health crisis in America today as it relates to malaria. If tomorrow, Executive Orders were being handed out in states that mandated vaccination for malaria, with no evidence to back up the necessity in the face of a public health crisis, I would be against it as well.

You have expressed your position in absolute terms:

"I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to HPV is a serious matter."

"I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease."

"Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe."

From your statements alone, it is reasonable to assume you have no qualms about forced vaccinations for any disease, regardless to context of whether it is a public health crisis or not. When I presented an extreme example of such absolutist ideology, you deem it a straw man.

I am not demanding that you explain your position with more nuance, I am just trying to understand it. When someone says, "I think this," I tend to want more detail, not just "Because that's what I believe." There is nothing wrong with having a belief and not wavering from it mind you. Some people may call that a principle.

I have attempted to elucidate my position here: http://www.memestreams.net/users/hijexx/blogid340819/

And yet we are supposed to believe that an otherwise rational person doesn't have sexual hangups? HPV vaccine does not make your daughter a whore. I get every impression your gut tells you it does.

You aren't bad at building straw men yourself! You can believe what you want. You have the right to be wrong about me. Here are some of my words from this discussion:

Sometimes I get sick of living in the Bible belt because of prevailing attitudes about what's best for me based on their idea of morality. I say if you want to do something, and it doesn't hurt someone else, go for it.

I also voted against Tennessee's Anti-gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment. I am not trying to change your mind about whether I have "sexual hangups." Like I said, you are entitled to be wrong. I am illustrating that you have no proof to believe so. You are basing your opinion on what your "gut" tells you, not on anything I have stated. I cannot argue against positions formed from irrationality.

If you still believe that I have a "sexual hangup" in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is tantamount to calling me a liar.

How nice that memestreams is, as you put it, "a marketplace of different ideas and opinions," where you can disagree with someone and immediately be called a fascist. :)

Wow, you almost invoked Godwin's Law! And so soon in the debate too!

I did not call you a fascist. I charged that you hold the following belief: When a vaccine for a disease becomes available, vaccinations for that disease should become mandatory. I base this on the following statement: "I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to [any disease] is a serious matter." The substitution of "HPV" for "any disease" is valid based on this statement: "I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease." Again, since you have expressed your opinion in absolute terms, this is the only logical conclusion that one can arrive at with respect to your opinion about mandatory vaccination.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls