Dan,

Sorry, I disagree with mandatory vaccines altogether. ESPECIALLY this one, where the facts were hidden from public view until a COURT ORDER enabled people to find out the truth.

If you think that women who get pregnant at 13 don't suffer lifelong consequences, think again, Dan. Even when they have an abortion, there's evidence they carry those scars with them. We actually have a GREATER public interest in providing birth control for teens than we do the HPV vaccine. Because if a teenager gets pregnant, TWO lives are impacted; if she gets HPV, ONE life is impacted.

this should be THREE lives

no, sadly, a lot of young boys just bail out of their responsibility.

But yes, to a lesser degree, they are impacted.

i understand this.

No I never advocated the vaccine....but I do remember writing to consider this vaccine....later on only because the woman, even if a virgin when marrying because she has greater chance of getting this if her husband had multiple sex partners.

I would never want to see young girls taking this vaccine but after more time invested it might not be a bad thing later on when she hits her twenties....only if this proves to be what they are saying it is.



I take offense to your tone Gid. No, a nurse told me this week and I asked her to send along the research.

My son goes by nothing other than scientific research journals. He takes no one's word for anything (including mine on any subject) unless it's been tried, tested and published. Like I said I take offense here.

It's against the law for children under the age of 14 to have sex in our state and in NH it's 16 so any educator enabling a young person to have sexual content is also helping them break the law.

I would think we would at least start there.

Right. Because your son's opinion cannot possibly be wrong. That's what I said, KFC, I was just wrong about the source of your data. Why would you take offense with my "tone", yet virtually repeat exactly what I stated in your "offense"?

I remember you being pretty adamant about the vaccine, KFC. While you may not have jumped on me like the others, I remember getting a LOT of heat from you on my opposition to the HPV vaccine. And, frankly, I took offense and registered my offense. I just let it drop.

And as it turned out, your son, the eminent research scientist, who knows so much more than my lowly little pea brained self, was wrong, and there were quite a few side effects, and yes, even deaths, that had not been reported, that had he been as close to the project you intoned, he would have known about. While you may have stopped short of a full endorsement of the HPV vaccine's mandatory status, you did take up their banner fairly well, KFC. It strikes me as odd that you would even CONSIDER a MANDATORY vaccine to keep young girls from suffering the consequences of their behaviour, when on the other hand, you oppose OPTIONAL health services to keep young girls from suffering the consequences of their behaviour.

It's all good though, KFC. You've done a world of good for me. By helping me to see the hypocrisy of organized Christian groups, you've helped me to realize that not being chained to a church body isn't a BAD thing!

Show me anywhere where I said MANDATORY. ANYWHERE.

I have NEVER been for any MANDATORY vaccine. Never.

So the proof is on you Gid. You are making an accusation that you CANNOT back up.

I actually am VERY against almost anything MANDATORY....even seatbealts.



I'm not at all sure where all this animosity is coming from Gid. I haven't even talked to you much lately. what's going on here?

Also what hypocricy are you talking about? Would you elaborate for me?

"If you think that women who get pregnant at 13 don't suffer lifelong consequences, think again, Dan. Even when they have an abortion, there's evidence they carry those scars with them. We actually have a GREATER public interest in providing birth control for teens than we do the HPV vaccine. Because if a teenager gets pregnant, TWO lives are impacted; if she gets HPV, ONE life is impacted."

I said the exact opposite. I also think especially when a child aborts another child, that causes mental and emotional issues which can become life long. Getting pregnant at 13, though ideal it is not, natural it is. Aborting a child, unnaturally, i.e. clinical means, is not natural. It causes emotional trauma which lies under the surface for the life of some women. The person equipped to make the best decision is not some 13 year old who got herself pregnant, or the government, but the parents of the child who can see how she suffered and how she got herself into trouble. There are no parents who encourage their 13 year old to have sex this decision reflects a solution of the alternate universe in which they do.

I also said mandatory anything is probably too strong an enforcement for a vaccination. I don't have a wealth of knowledge of this disease and its effects. What I understand is that it is a STD that is defeatable by a vaccination.

So lets learn with some facts...
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#Howget

One of the reasons a vaccine is necessary is that...

"Most people who have a genital HPV infection do not know they are infected."

"For 2004, the American Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening."

"The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual. For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected."

So an adult woman can be infected engaging in sexual contact with a man, who has the virus, because it is virtually undetected in a man, and is not tested in men, and has symptoms that don't allow high observability.

If she is infected she can pass that along to any children during birth.

Gid I believe you will find that you are in the minority if you believe that as a safety mechanism for the ills of our society we need to provide children who are

A. Incapable of making adult decisions as children
B. Financially support a child, because 11-12-13-14 year olds are unemployable themselves!
C. Emotionally incapable of providing the level of care a child needs and deserves
D. Unplanned teen pregnancies do not provide the nuclear stability of adult relationships based on other factors.

I agree that if there were no other option and children were going to, without fault, have sex before they are able to meet all the criteria for being a parent that yes contraception would be necessary. However, it is only a safety mechanism if you make it one. If you allow the government to make a parents decision for them regarding their children, then you expose the government to the liability when the child's chosen contraception method fails.

Are you saying that it is wiser for government to be able to offer children a way to override their parents decision making, in light of their own poor decision to become pregnant at an age before they are able to provide for their children, instead of facing the consequences of their decisions before the choose to make a stupid decision beforehand?

I see contraception for tweens and teens to be a real impediment to health and wise decision making when it comes to impulse control and responsibility acceptance. If I understand your position correctly, you are against mandatory vaccines which will save lives while also in favor of the ability of children to make life of death decisions about another human?

Don't you think that a child would be better served by her government by not having an "escape hatch" option to dealing with a pregnancy. Would not that tween or teen be better guided by a parent that could provide additional guidance over time raising another child if financially able, then allowing the government to allow a child to control that?

You may say no, not the parent who already screwed up by getting his/her child pregnant, however most teenage pregnancies are the result not of rape, or molestation, but of children who choose an action which is a mistake. I would remind you that the only way to get pregnant is to have sex, your odds of getting pregnant on the first try are not good, which means that for most pregnancies, these teens have had sex multiple times, made the bad decision multiple times. Compounding that mistake by allowing them sole control again of their destiny, when they may or may not choose to consult or have assistance with their decision making is ridiculous.

Parents need to be involved. That is exactly what doesn't happen when teenagers have the ability to acquire contraception on their on. People who aren't old enough to drive/drink/vote, shouldn't be given the right or responsibility to procreate or un-procreate.

Not always. The vaccine works to help prevent some types of cervical cancer, not all. And like ANY medication, it has side effects.



OK, we're crossing wires here, Dan. I'm not arguing against providing birth control to teens, although I am against doing it without parental notification. My contention was with something else, which is where the HPV topic came in.

I have also stated that I do not feel the HPV vaccine is in itself a horrendous thing. My issues are/were with: 1) mandatory vaccinations in general, 2) the original Texas edict, now overturned, which came about by decree of the governor, without even consulting the legislature.



I love when people preach to the choir. In your case, it's obviously done to pretend that I was arguing against your point. Quaint, Dan, real quaint.

I don't have time to research the whole original argument. What I remember is that you initially opposed the vaccine right along with me, then when your son talked about what a great and glorious thing it is, you suddenly became a champion of it. Maybe you didn't argue for the mandate, but you certainly did become a champion of the HPV vaccine once your son gave it his rousing endorsement, based SOLELY on his endorsement, and not on any reasonable research.

I have no doubt that your son is an intelligent man, KFC, but unless you can prove to me that he is one of the most respected researchers in his field, I'll have to take them with the same grain of salt I would expect someone to use to accompany my own scientific advice.



I read more than I comment. It's not just one thing, just a long, long history, KFC.

I'll leave it be, though. It was an outburst. I don't want to get into a lengthy argument with you over it.

I do and still oppose the mandatory vaccine. Never changed my mind. NEVER. So Gid, we ARE in agreement here. What I said, and I'm repeating myself here is that there may be some benefits to this vaccine but for young women who are in their 20's not in sixth grade.

For the sake of THIS argument and THIS blog I never even spoke to my son about this. So I believe it's unfair to drag him into this. You accused me of getting my info from him, (which you admitted wrong) but seem to want to continue.



Well you know you can always, and are very welcome, to email me personally.

"I love when people preach to the choir. In your case, it's obviously done to pretend that I was arguing against your point. Quaint, Dan, real quaint."

I'm not a parent so it's hardly a preaching to the choir. I evidently didn't leave my position crystal clear, to which you stated.

"If you think that women who get pregnant at 13 don't suffer lifelong consequences, think again, Dan."

I thought I was just clearing it up.

This thread isn't about mandatory vaccinations. It's about kids getting permission from the government to screw and end up with family responsibilities of their own because 5 out of 7 dumb asses made a short sighted decision in Maine.

I agree with you mandatory vaccinations are a bit of a overstep by the government into your freedoms, but when you don't protect everybody from contagious diseases then the potential for everybody to become ill because of that occurs.

Were you also not saying here...

"We actually have a GREATER public interest in providing birth control for teens than we do the HPV vaccine. Because if a teenager gets pregnant, TWO lives are impacted; if she gets HPV, ONE life is impacted."

...that in this case it is acceptable to rid the right and responsibility of a parent to control their minors' access to birth control but not acceptable to make it mandatory to protect them against something that will likely happen to them when they have sex in the future?

That is what this decision does correct? It allows minors of basically any age to acquire birth control with or without parental consent. Furthermore, enabling children who want to have sex for whatever reason, to do so. Should they get pregnant they now have an out for that situation. Maybe my understanding is flawed but that is why I gather everybody is so wildly pissed about this. I think it's a bad idea to be letting children make family planning decisions without being able to support a family in the environment that is our society.

between 5 and 10 years ago south Africa tried to control the elephant population with the pill. elephant version of course.


any ways turned out that it was driving the elephants crazy. the females were always in heat. the males were always in musk. the babies kept getting trampled. they had to take the elephants off the pill. if we researched when the so sex crazed Americans came along would we find the samething. would this new program bring with it a similar problem.

Wild animals from the animal kingdom has little relevance to the discussion DL.

"I think what's really pissing you off is that you know there are many parents out there who realistically understand that despite their best efforts to the contrary, most (95%) of their offspring are going to have sex before achieving legal adulthood."

I guess I was in the minority on that one then. I don't think the government should be in the business of providing children, i.e. 11 and 12 year olds birth control methods which are not 100% effective, even if parents give consent. Duh!

"In the first place, oh reading-challenged one, the government is not ovveriding the parental decision-making process, the parents have to give explicit permission for their kids to avail themselves of these services."

Maybe this is news to you Whip, but in order to make babies, you have to have two people. If one has the consent and guidance from their parents, and the other does not, that still doesn't prevent a pregnancy in this scenario where two underage kids fuck.

If I don't want my 11 year old having sex with the 14 year old on birth control, because its,

A. Unethical to any offspring that could be generated.
B. Illegal
C. A very poor and stupid way to ruin a childs' life.
D. Immoral
E. Hazardous to their health

My government shouldn't be invited by a school board to make it easier for the other students of a middle school to have sex with my minor child. Perhaps you'd be in favor of issuing birth control to the parents of a child in grade school or kindergarden? At what age does consent become too young? Five? No no, four?

You are not an unintelligent person Whip but sometimes your need to be right and get back at someone online really flaws your point to the level of well, about as ridiculously as an 11 year old needing to get birth control to prevent pregnancy.

No, no, no, no, no, the legal age of majority 16, 18, or 21, the reason these ages work is because at these ages young adults can see a few years beyond high school relationships and into college, and know what they risk if they choose to play the game of irresponsibility and get stuck with a kid. With the length of time a woman can get pregnant, i.e. into her 40's or 50's, there is no reason she should start attempting to become as soon as it is possible.

You know damn well, that allowing tweens and young teenagers access to birth control is a bad idea, in any event. But anything to slam someone who sticks to their moral principals on a subject, in which it really applies. I find your point lacking merit or substance, your criticism of my own response, lacking any foresight on what actually happens in reality when children get into this kind of trouble, and typical of you Whip, on the war path crusading against the people you dislike.

Again the point to be made is that just because you give your kid permission to screw before it's legal, ehtical, and moral, doesn't mean I have the same grand plan in mind for mine, or that I want your child trying to introduce your fault way of thinking into mine?

Are you with me here KFC?

Danielost posts:

DANGREENE POSTS:

The relevance is that we can learn from them. For example, I read that they have found a high level of contraceptives in the water that is causing a depletion of fish.

The social issues of underage contraception availability and utilization of human intervened birth control in the wild. I'm still not seeing the connection or application.

The DNR regulates fishing too, for population control. Big deal, Underage conception control has nothing to do with that and neighter does the elephant population of south africa and the school district in maine.

"The relevance is that we can learn from them. For example, I read that they have found a high level of contraceptives in the water that is causing a depletion of fish."

So what?

LW, the over-riding principle behind this is that our policies and laws are supposed to be for the common good of all, not just a few.

Bottom line: The middle school has over-stepped their bounds in doling out prescription birth control drugs to 11, 12 and 13 year old girls. Schools are supposed to be learning centers not human resource centers. Our schools should educate the intellect, not stimulate the flesh.

The application is, whether for animals, fish or little girls, birth control drugs misused cause society problems...big problems.

I am with you and then some Dan. Thank you. You nailed it.

And they didn't have to be LW. If you went thru the pregnancy and either kept these children or even gave them up, you'd be able to have children today.

When I said earlier I was in the minority when I said there are worse things than pregnancy, what happened to you was one example.

If you had been held accountable with your first pregnancy and gone thru with it, it would have curtailed your sex life at least for a while...maybe even to the point of not getting pregnant the second time.

What others are saying (including you) is if you put them on BC they will be better off...no abortion, and possibly no infertility problems down the road. But we don't know how these pills will affect the kids down the road. I know some gals that CAN'T get pregnant now after being on BC pills for years. It's suspect that BC pills may have had something to do with their infertility now.

Also, these BC pills can give these girls a false sense of security not thinking there are other things that can happen to them and going from partner to partner can be much more damaging down the road both, emotionally as well as physically, than a single pregnancy would.

I think the whole BC fiasco for Middle Schoolers is a lose-lose situation.

Not to mention that they are beginning to think there may be a link to breast cancer.

I wonder about the "Responsible-ness" about giving prescriptions to kids without telling their parents or primary care physicians. How many kids are going to take over the counter, and prescription meds from the primary care doctors that interact negatively with whatever form of birth control the girl is secretly on?

I wonder how many of the little Dr. Mengelas on the Portland Maine School board (or even the quacks with medical degrees working in these clinics) will be willing to break the code of silence when some of these girls get hurt or killed for "the cause"?

Unless there is evidence of abuse, NO "educator" who says "your parents don't need to know" should see one more paycheck as a school employee!!! No "educator" has the right to systemically keep the parents out of a child's health care or education.

This is not a "slippery slope" to fascism, this is an example of it.

I'm sorry to hear about your children Whip.

Honestly why do you think it's productive to bring forth one line zingers, from the skeleton closet of your personal life?

"I wonder about the "Responsible-ness" about giving prescriptions to kids without telling their parents or primary care physicians. How many kids are going to take over the counter, and prescription meds from the primary care doctors that interact negatively with whatever form of birth control the girl is secretly on?"

Exactly. Which is another reason why making this type of medical care available without parental consent is unwise. Right now, it is illegal for a school counselor or whoever to give out these contraceptives. However, I do not believe it is illegal for a counselor to refer a student to the ER or a hospital to acquire BC. Again, without notifying or securing parental consent.