Catholic School Board decide not to vaccinate for cervical cancer on moral grounds

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh I made it up, no doubt about it, but I think it's probably in the ballpark.

What percentage of people do you believe wait until marriage to have sex for the first time?

plenty.
and plenty make it out of high school too.

[Displaced Flames fan]

A couple of questions.

1. Why is a school board deciding who should and should not be vaccinated?
2. Isn't it possible to have HPV without sexual contact?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

plenty.

Really? You know plenty of people who never had sex before they got married?

I'm not talking about geezers here. Let's say 1970 is the cutoff date for this pointless discussion. Do you know people who were born later than 1970 who waited until marriage before they had sex for the first time?

I'm not living in the Age of Aquarius over here, but I don't think I know a single person who could make that claim.

Anyway, if someone came up with a vaccine that prevented diabetes, I wonder if anyone would object to having their child vaccinated, based on the fear that the kid will think it's okay to eat more candy.

That's about how silly this seems to me.

This vaccine prevents certain types of cancer. Isn't that good enough? Doesn't that sound good? People are actually against this? Preventing cancer? I mean come on. "I don't want to prevent cancer in these people that listen to and trust me. I'm willing to risk it, even though I know the vast majority of them will be at risk".

Can anyone say that out loud? Because that's what this is.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Really? You know plenty of people who never had sex before they got married?

I'm not talking about geezers here. Let's say 1970 is the cutoff date for this pointless discussion. Do you know people who were born later than 1970 who waited until marriage before they had sex for the first time?

Yes. unthinkable isn't it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes. unthinkable isn't it.

Kinda, yeah. I suppose some people can pull it off (without pulling it off).

[MarchHare]

I know of exactly one couple who waited until marriage before having sex. They were also very religious high school sweethearts who married before they turned 20.

Of course, the word "anecdote" is not the singular form of the word "data", so let's try to inject some actual figures into this conversation.

These statistics are from the United States, but I wouldn't expect rates of pre-marital sex amongst Canadians to be significantly different. According to this, 97% of Americans who have ever had sex before the age of 44 have had pre-marital sex.

Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents
had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age
44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who
had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained
until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts
of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital
sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had
premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

Conclusions. Almost all Americans have sex before marrying. These findings
argue for education and interventions that provide the skills and information
people need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases once they become sexually active, regardless of marital
status.

http://www.publichealthreports.org/u...22-1_73-78.pdf

[Calgaryborn]

I know of two couples who will be married next month and will experience their first kiss at the ceremony. Both couples are in their twenties. Along with homeschooling, courtship is making a comeback in both Canada and the USA.

As far as this Catholic school decision: It is their prerogative to council their students and families on social issues. If the family of the children don't like the influence they don't have to stay in the Catholic school system. I also think it is good of them to offer the information to the families. They didn't need too.

It is up to the parents to decide whether their daughters receive this vaccine. It's not really any of our business. Unlike the Catholic church we haven't been invited in by these families to offer our own moral assessment.

[CaptainCrunch]

Great post Calgaryborn

[Ruttiger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyway, if someone came up with a vaccine that prevented diabetes, I wonder if anyone would object to having their child vaccinated, based on the fear that the kid will think it's okay to eat more candy.

That's about how silly this seems to me.

This vaccine prevents certain types of cancer. Isn't that good enough? Doesn't that sound good? People are actually against this? Preventing cancer? I mean come on. "I don't want to prevent cancer in these people that listen to and trust me. I'm willing to risk it, even though I know the vast majority of them will be at risk".

Can anyone say that out loud? Because that's what this is.

x2 - summed up fairly succinctly

[habernac]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I don't know, same reason men aren't nuns?
Anyways, I am just saying all the catholics that I know (men and women) seem to value women as equals.

Show me a nun in a leadership role and you have an argument. Why not have them in leadership roles? Because they aren't considered equal.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is up to the parents to decide whether their daughters receive this vaccine. It's not really any of our business.

Actually it is our business, the health of society as a whole is the interest OF society as a whole. Smallpox?

The board has the right to make that decision of course, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.. however we can question the rightness of that decision, and the motivation.

[photon]

I wonder if they knew about this when they made the decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/he...orriDarEutMvXQ

Now researchers are finding that many oral cancers in men are also associated with the virus.
A clinical trial testing therapies for advanced tongue and tonsil cancers has found that more than 40 percent of the tumors in men were infected with HPV. If there is good news in the finding, it is that these HPV-associated tumors were among the most responsive to treatment.

[photon]

Originally Posted by fotze

So what you are saying is catholic girls who develop cervical cancer who did not get the vaccine do not get their treatment covered by health care.

I don't think that, and I can't see how my post says that.

[Thor]

Shameful stuff.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

but this ludicrous "stance" is coming from a figure of authority within the church, and there are people out there dumb enough to actually listen to it.

I hadn't considered that I'll admit. Maybe thats the difference. I'm not sure the stance is 'don't do it' as much as 'we're not going to do it for you'.

I think the stance is silly, I'm just not willing to let anyone else of the hook. It drives me crazy when the church tries to enforce morality. To me if they are giving the info and asking people to make their own choice, that's fair.

[photon]

Like I said I'd really like to read the letter they'll send with the info.

Saying vaccinating against an STD will promote sexual promiscuity is like saying putting fluoride in the water will promote gluttony of sweets.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

But you've got to remember these Bishops are in a position of authority and they are basically telling the parents "if your daughter gets this shot, she's going to be a skank... and you know what THAT means....."

As with Rouge I'm not sure that's the message. It'd be interesting to see what goes home with the kids and how it is positioned.

I missed this the first time I read, but yeah, I think it would be the same reaction if they made the call for the same reason (that it promotes pre-marital sex). If they had a REAL reason (dangerous side effect or something) then no one would argue. Same as if the Catholic church had a rational reason for not allowing it. No one would complain.

To me, allowing parents to choose for themselves is rational. But i see your point.

[Kipper is King]

It's not as if since the school has said they won't be distributing the vaccine that no Catholic children can get it.

It's just being left up to parents to decide wether their child needs it.

I see nothing wrong with this. You want the vaccine for your daughter? You can go get it for your daughter. Simple.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I know of exactly one couple who waited until marriage before having sex. They were also very religious high school sweethearts who married before they turned 20.

Of course, the word "anecdote" is not the singular form of the word "data", so let's try to inject some actual figures into this conversation.

These statistics are from the United States, but I wouldn't expect rates of pre-marital sex amongst Canadians to be significantly different. According to this, 97% of Americans who have ever had sex before the age of 44 have had pre-marital sex.



http://www.publichealthreports.org/u...22-1_73-78.pdf

The link I posted earlier has some 2006 Canadian info:

Sex Facts in Canada 2006
Sexual Experience

* The average age both male and female Canadians have sex for the first time is 16.5
* 28% of teens aged 15-17 report having had sexual intercourse at least once. By age 20-24, this increases to 80%
* In a 2005 report, 41% of males aged 15-17 and 39% of those aged 18-19 reported having more than one sexual partner in the previous year.
* For females in the study, 29% of 15-17 year olds and 31% of those aged 18-19 reported having more than one sexual partner in the previous year.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

It's not as if since the school has said they won't be distributing the vaccine that no Catholic children can get it.

It's just being left up to parents to decide wether their child needs it.

I see nothing wrong with this. You want the vaccine for your daughter? You can go get it for your daughter. Simple.

You forget the power of preachers/priests/iman's etc...

The fact someone is telling you they feel this is something their cult disagrees with is a powerful way to convince a lot of sheep not to follow along.

We all know about Jehova's and blood transfusions, now we have Catholics and life saving innoculations....

Oh wait, I'm being rude to personal religious beliefs.

We have only to look at the Measle's vaccine in the UK and other parts of the western world to see the stupidity of people.

Bad logic, bad reasoning, bad religion, etc..

Lets not take health by advice of ancient magical being worship over the advice of science, reason and logic.

For shame on the Catholic board.