Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:53 pm

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/08/ ... l-consent/

Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Girls Aged 12 Can Be Given Without Parental Consent

The Department of Health confirmed that parental consent was desirable but not essential.

--We'll that's great. every year parents lose more authority over the their children and the state gets more.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:02 pm

Really? You're against this? You're against girls being vaccinated for HPV?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Pril » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:06 pm

I Actually agree with Kiryan. It's not so much being against girls being vaccinated for HPV its more that they are minors and therefore they should need their parents consent. The parents can do the research behind the vaccine rather than blindly administering it. I know I know 95% of parents won't but still.
The best of WTF statments of '06
--------------------------------------------------------
Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'
Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'
Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Sarvis » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:27 pm

kiryan wrote:--We'll that's great. every year parents lose more authority over the their children and the state gets more.


Should parents be able to prostitute their children? I hope your answer is no. It's accepted that the state sets limits on what is acceptable behavior for a parent. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, because it helps prevent things like parents prostituting their children.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:44 pm

I don't see how the two situations are related.

This is not a limit on what a parent can do, it is completing cutting out the parent's role in making choices about their child's health and medical treatment.

Its just the next step started wtih 14 year olds getting abortions without parental consent.

What is the future role for the parent when the state continues to take more and more authority away from you?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Sarvis » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:07 pm

kiryan wrote:I don't see how the two situations are related.

This is not a limit on what a parent can do, it is completing cutting out the parent's role in making choices about their child's health and medical treatment.

Its just the next step started wtih 14 year olds getting abortions without parental consent.

What is the future role for the parent when the state continues to take more and more authority away from you?


So you don't see prostituting a child as making a choice about their health? Really?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:26 pm

kiryan wrote:Its just the next step started wtih 14 year olds getting abortions without parental consent.

That's legal too, as it should be.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Pril » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:06 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:I don't see how the two situations are related.

This is not a limit on what a parent can do, it is completing cutting out the parent's role in making choices about their child's health and medical treatment.

Its just the next step started wtih 14 year olds getting abortions without parental consent.

What is the future role for the parent when the state continues to take more and more authority away from you?


So you don't see prostituting a child as making a choice about their health? Really?


That's not what he said at all. He said that the two things have nothing to do with eachother. One says it is illegal to do this )prostitute your kids). The other says the kids don't need your permission to do this (get the vaccine).

The vaccine one can be correlated to something like needing consent to get a tattoo before 18 or what not.


Ragorn wrote:(In reference to abortions) That's legal too, as it should be.


Rags the way I see it is a Parent shouldn't be able to make a life altering choice for their child. Forcing the kid to have the baby is a life altering choice. The vaccine really could go either way since it is new on the market and parents may not be comfortable with their kids getting a shot that has not had testing over a significant period of time. I know my wife went back and forth about giving our child the chicken pox vaccine and finally decided to do it, but it was something we discussed and were able to make a somewhat informed decision. Most people now a days are willing to be complete pin cushions to the medical industry.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:35 pm

So let me get this straight Ragorn.

14 year olds can't drink, can't smoke, can't get jobs... but they can have sex and get abortions.

Abortion, a very significant choice with well documented statistics to be very emotionally traumatic regardless of your pro choice pro life affiliation, should be a choice made by a 14 year old without any parental involvement... Furthermore, as a parent... responsible for the health and well being of your child... you don't have a right or need to know that your child has made this choice / is dealing with this issue?

Well that just goes hand in hand with my argument that parents continue to lose the ability and authority to parent to the state who is increasingly involved and interfering with our personal, family life.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Corth » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:42 am

I would probably have my daughter get the vaccine but that is beside the point. It is completely reasonable for people to be skeptical of new medical treatments and vaccines. I mean.. just about every year they discover some previously recommended medication or treatment actually has severe side effects. My father is a doctor and he still won't get Lasik because he is concerned that it hasn't been around long enough to see what develops over 20-30 years. Perhaps there is a miniscule chance of something happening, but why not let someone else be the guinea pig? The parent should have ultimate responsibility for making decisions concerning the health and safety of their children, and the importance of this particular vaccine does not rise to high enough level for the state to step in and overrule the parent.

That being said, I don't see many people complaining about the mandatory administration of a Vitamin K shot to newborns, and putting that goop in their eyes at birth - silver nitrate or something. Where I live it's mandated by state law. Exactly the same thing as the mandatory HPV vaccine, though perhaps with a longer history. The eye treatment really pissed me off because it's only useful where the mother has ghonerrea - and my wife doesn't have the clap, so don't put shit in my newborn's eye. But not my decision to make...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:04 pm

We opted out of the silver nitrite when Caitlin was born. It's not mandatory here.

The vaccine issue is another one where parents need to not be given the right to put their children in danger. And that goes for both the anti-vaccine lunatics and the "prayer is the only medicine my children need" whackos. Cervical cancer isn't a joke, and daily doses of prayer and Vitamin C aren't going to help. It's also not a whore's disease, a disease that only affects gay people, or a righteous brand from god himself to cast down the sodomites. It's a life-threatening ailment caused by a virus which is largely preventable. If a 14 year old girl knows enough to get the vaccine, and her whacko parents want to get involved because they think vaccines are a liberal government conspiracy, then that girl should be able to do what's best for her in spite of her parent's wishes.

But we already knew that conservatives are against proper health care ;)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:17 pm

kiryan wrote:So let me get this straight Ragorn.

14 year olds can't drink, can't smoke, can't get jobs... but they can have sex and get abortions.


Abstinence hasn't worked properly in over 2000 years, so being "old enough" to make the choice to have sex is a bit of a red herring. Drinking and smoking... meh. In some places people are old enough to drink when they are 5, and most people start smoking around that age anyway so really not seeing your point here.

All too much of this falls under the category of "Kids are going to do it no matter what you say."

Abortions too, by the way:

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.
- http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... rtion.html


So really the choice here is not a 14 year old getting an abortion vs. not getting one. It's a choice between getting a safe abortion and an unsafe one.


Abortion, a very significant choice with well documented statistics to be very emotionally traumatic


Which is completely unlike having a baby at 14, which has no consequences whatsoever, emotional or otherwise.

regardless of your pro choice pro life affiliation, should be a choice made by a 14 year old without any parental involvement... Furthermore, as a parent... responsible for the health and well being of your child... you don't have a right or need to know that your child has made this choice / is dealing with this issue?

Well that just goes hand in hand with my argument that parents continue to lose the ability and authority to parent to the state who is increasingly involved and interfering with our personal, family life.


You start losing authority as a parent the moment your kid turns 13. Most likely you'll eventually lose all of it.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the law.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:38 pm

Sarvis wrote:Abstinence hasn't worked properly in over 2000 years, so being "old enough" to make the choice to have sex is a bit of a red herring.

Do you have any statistics on this? Can you prove that it worked on no one? Can you prove that it didn't work for a majority? 60%? 70%? 80%?

The real red herring is the old, tired, and simply untrue claim that abstinence doesn't work. The fact is that it works for the vast majority that it is earnestly applied to.

You just don't want to admit to the 90+% success rate.

You also don't want to admit that there are vast areas in this country where an honestly applied and supported abstinence only sex education would actually work better than something else.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:15 pm

Having a baby at 14 is tough and usually you have help. Its not at all the same kind of tough that people go through with abortion. The emotional trauma is generally attributed to the individual eventually coming to the understanding that they killed their baby, another human being, not just a lump of tissue.

--

Gardasil is something parents shouldn't have the right to refuse? I can refuse chicken pox, small pox, whooping cough basically any vaccine, but I shouldn't be able to refuse a much more significant and dangerous vaccine like Gardasil? There is a growing body of dismissed evidence that it has severe ramifications in rare circumstances.

And another thing fuk you and all your liberal pro vaccine pro everything authority tells you. Our 14 year old daughter has autism which we think was caused by or at least made worse by vaccines she received. She went in for vaccines and got a couple sets because she had missed some scheduled ones. Within 24 hours she had her first of many seizures. She was diagnosed with pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified and several years later with autism.

I'm hesitant to fully blame Parris' conditions on vaccines, but I don't think it helped. Since then, I have moved our vaccination schedule back 6mos to 1 year for all our youngest children because I think they should be older and healthier before they get these vaccines and the schedule is mostly based on when they expect parents to be putting their kids in daycare (and exposed to the germs). So fuck you and your support for mandatory vaccines. They don't make these laws to tailor to the individual circumstances or worry about hurting 1 or 2 kids out of 100 who will have a bad outcome, they sacrifice these kids in the name of public health and whether or not I submit my child to these risks should 100% be my choice... especialy for a very serious vaccine (garadasil isn't a minor prick) that basically protects against a STD. I am the only person who's primary interest is my children, everyone else is thinking about the collective so my decisions should ALWAYS trump theirs.

http://cervical-cancer.emedtv.com/garda ... fects.html
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/bl ... swers.html

--

I refused the eye crap too. I accepted the genetic test with misgivings (but refused to allow the state to add it to their research database)... the heel prick is just so cruel to inflict on a baby who has no idea what the hell is going on, but if they have this rare genetic disorder they end up with permanent brain damage before you would even know there was a problem.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:49 pm

kiryan wrote:Having a baby at 14 is tough and usually you have help. Its not at all the same kind of tough that people go through with abortion.


Yeah, 18 years of child rearing, starting before you've even finished high school, is like a walk in the park.

Gardasil is something parents shouldn't have the right to refuse? I can refuse chicken pox, small pox, whooping cough basically any vaccine, but I shouldn't be able to refuse a much more significant and dangerous vaccine like Gardasil? There is a growing body of dismissed evidence that it has severe ramifications in rare circumstances.


You probably shouldn't be able to refuse any of those. I'd honestly say that Gardasil is less necessary since HPV is harder to contract.

And another thing fuk you and all your liberal pro vaccine pro everything authority tells you. Our 14 year old daughter has autism which we think was caused by or at least made worse by vaccines she received.


You don't have to believe everything dumb VJ's from MTV tell you, Kiryan.

1) The paper that started this debate stated that it could not show a causal link
2) Most of the authors have retracted the paper
3) The doctor leading the study has since lost his medical license and used questionable methodologies when he did the study
4) Most Importantly 18 studies have been performed since and all have come back stating that the vaccine does NOT cause autism

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/07/p. ... index.html

worry about hurting 1 or 2 kids out of 100 who will have a bad outcome,


The alternative:

"Before the widespread use of a vaccine against measles, its incidence was so high that infection with measles was felt to be "as inevitable as death and taxes.""

"The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths."

So
1) The vaccine does not cause autism
2) It prevents thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of cases of mental retardation

How do you think a parent would feel if they lost a child due to misinformation, thinking the vaccine was not safe?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:14 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Do you have any statistics on this? Can you prove that it worked on no one? Can you prove that it didn't work for a majority? 60%? 70%? 80%?

The real red herring is the old, tired, and simply untrue claim that abstinence doesn't work. The fact is that it works for the vast majority that it is earnestly applied to.

You just don't want to admit to the 90+% success rate.

You also don't want to admit that there are vast areas in this country where an honestly applied and supported abstinence only sex education would actually work better than something else.

Abstinence actually has a 100% success rate. 99.999999999999999999~% if you believe a particular 2000 year old story ;)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:23 pm

ROFL that is epic.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:06 pm

Ragorn wrote:Abstinence actually has a 100% success rate. 99.999999999999999999~% if you believe a particular 2000 year old story ;)

Heh, nice.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:53 pm

Also, I want to be a carpenter when I grow up. Not for the job or the benefits, but for the higher-than-average rate of resurrection.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby kiryan » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:37 pm

rofl, are you making these up or getting them from somewhere lol
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:39 pm

The first one was mine, the carpenter joke has been around for a while.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
shalath
Sojourner
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 8:46 pm

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby shalath » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:22 am

kiryan wrote:Our 14 year old daughter has autism which we think was caused by or at least made worse by vaccines she received. She went in for vaccines and got a couple sets because she had missed some scheduled ones. Within 24 hours she had her first of many seizures. She was diagnosed with pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified and several years later with autism.

I'm sorry to hear that Mike. FYI, a report published in the current edition of the British Medical Journal details the deliberate fraud that was perpetrated with the now infamous MMR study. The full link is at:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

I'm not sure if you'll be able to read it (my wife is a doctor and she is signed into the BMJ on this PC, so it might be subscription only), but the summary is pretty telling:

  • Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
  • Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
  • Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
  • In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”
  • The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
  • Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation

The doctor who wrote the article has been struck off the UK Medical Register (no longer allowed to practise medicine).
[Profile edited by Board Admin. If you can't be civil, we'll fix it for you. -ed]
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Pril » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:33 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Do you have any statistics on this? Can you prove that it worked on no one? Can you prove that it didn't work for a majority? 60%? 70%? 80%?

The real red herring is the old, tired, and simply untrue claim that abstinence doesn't work. The fact is that it works for the vast majority that it is earnestly applied to.

You just don't want to admit to the 90+% success rate.

You also don't want to admit that there are vast areas in this country where an honestly applied and supported abstinence only sex education would actually work better than something else.

Abstinence actually has a 100% success rate. 99.999999999999999999~% if you believe a particular 2000 year old story ;)

Image
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:37 pm

Pril wrote:
Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Do you have any statistics on this? Can you prove that it worked on no one? Can you prove that it didn't work for a majority? 60%? 70%? 80%?

The real red herring is the old, tired, and simply untrue claim that abstinence doesn't work. The fact is that it works for the vast majority that it is earnestly applied to.

You just don't want to admit to the 90+% success rate.

You also don't want to admit that there are vast areas in this country where an honestly applied and supported abstinence only sex education would actually work better than something else.

Abstinence actually has a 100% success rate. 99.999999999999999999~% if you believe a particular 2000 year old story ;)

Image


ROFL... nice... you make that?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:47 pm

shalath wrote:The doctor who wrote the article has been struck off the UK Medical Register (no longer allowed to practise medicine).

Don't bother. Autism has been found to be unrelated to vaccines in literally every clinical study that's ever been done on the subject. However, scientific consensus is just further proof to kiryan that his contrary opinion is correct.

Scientists are always wrong.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Parental consent not required for cervical cancer vaccine

Postby Pril » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:04 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Pril wrote:
Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Do you have any statistics on this? Can you prove that it worked on no one? Can you prove that it didn't work for a majority? 60%? 70%? 80%?

The real red herring is the old, tired, and simply untrue claim that abstinence doesn't work. The fact is that it works for the vast majority that it is earnestly applied to.

You just don't want to admit to the 90+% success rate.

You also don't want to admit that there are vast areas in this country where an honestly applied and supported abstinence only sex education would actually work better than something else.

Abstinence actually has a 100% success rate. 99.999999999999999999~% if you believe a particular 2000 year old story ;)

Image


ROFL... nice... you make that?


Nope, You can buy it at different tshirt places.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests