Groups are working on a vaccine that should be able to come out early next year. A vaccine that will protect against a sexually transmitted virus (HPV which just happens to be the most common sexually transmitted disease--about 80% of teenagers who are sexually active have it). Cervical cancer usually affects young women who are sexually active. I actually would not know all this unless I had gotten a pap smear just a few weeks ago. Anyway because this vaccine can prevent cervical cancer many people are eager to make the vaccine a standard roster of shots for children to recieve (mostly for girls) before they hit puberty. The controversy (as there always is one) is that many people believe that immunizing teenagers will encourage them to be sexually active.
I personally feel like this vaccine is a great step. Cervical cancer is a killer, not only in the U.S. but all over the world. And people want to deny this because they think that it will encourage their kids to have sex? This vaccine is meant to help prevent harmful diseases. Teenagers are going to have sex, hopefully not all of them but some of them are, even if your child stays a virgin till they get married there's always the chance that their partner might not be. Nowadays there is so much rape/incest of young children and teenagers, this vaccine will not erase what has happened to them but it will prevent them contacting harmful diseases.
What is more important saving lives, or protecting the majority's moral agenda?
I wrote about the issue a couple of weeks back. Like when Dick Cheney was stumping for torture, it's tough for the Right to look like they are on the moral high ground this ime; last time it was torture on the agenda, this time it's cancer.
--------------------
There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
I want that vaccine. I don't think it will make me do anything I don't do know. I just know that my mom had cervical cancer (or precancerous cells in her cervicx) I just don't want to get cancer! You know?
you cannot have it if you are not a virgin; that is the REAL catch.
Actually from what i was told (don't know how relaible) that it works better if you are a virgin, but you don't have to be one
I think your statistic that 80% of girls have HPV is inaccurate. But true I think this vaccine will be a great step and it will not increase the amount of sexual activity in younger people as has been the argument. It's a good idea. I want the vaccine.
why do you have to be a virgin in order for this vaccine to work? if a person has only had sex with one partner, protection aka condoms were always used and they have been sexually inactive for sometime, would they still be unable to recieve the vaccine?
I think that, perhaps, you don't HAVE to be a virgin - it just works better if you are. I think they're saying that you must be one, because it's then a definite vaccine against the virus that helps cause the cancer and you'll most-likely never get either. But if you aren't a virgin, you could possibly have the virus and not know, and it's not a CURE for the virus, just a vaccine against it, which means it wouldn't work. I think you're right about the only having sex with one partner, thing, because, if you know for sure t hat your partner is the only one who's had sex with YOU, and you both lost your virginity to each other, then the chances of you both having the virus is probably next to zero. :-P (however, if there are other circumstances, then it's best to check that you dont' HAVE the virus before you get the vaccine.)
Might be wrong, but that's the jist I get from it. ^^