Choosing Chastity or Risk of Cancer

It remains to be seen how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will handle the approval process of a new batch of vaccines that target human papillomavirus, which causes most cases of cervical cancer, the second biggest cancer killer in women. Some religious conservatives have objected to administering such vaccines to girls and young women. These conservatives fear that reducing their fears of infection will encourage young umarried women to be more promiscuous. Apparently in order to boost the chances of chastity, they would prefer that women be vaccinated later in life.

Now a new study finds that at least one vaccine (not yet submitted to the FDA) produces an immune response that is twice as strong if it's injected between ages 10 and 14, rather than between ages 15 and 25. The Plan B emergency contraceptive fiasco, in which the FDA's political appointees blocked approval of the drug for over-the-counter sale despite the overwhelming support of its scientific panels, is a worrisome precedent. In that case, too, the fear was that the availability of Plan B would encourage unmarried women to engage in sex. So when the new cervical cancer vaccine is submitted to the FDA, will the agency choose chastity or science?

Comments

Ayatollah Usoe | December 19, 2005, 12:36pm | #

Wait... I thought one could only get cervical cancer if it was god's will?

Johnny Clarke | December 19, 2005, 12:40pm | #

5$ says they choose chastity. C'mon, who wants some of this action?

David | December 19, 2005, 12:52pm | #

5$ says they choose chastity. C'mon, who wants some of this action?

Not me, but I think they're more likely to come up with some sort of half-assed compromise. I don't have a theory for what it might be yet.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 12:53pm | #

Not me, but I think they're more likely to come up with some sort of half-assed compromise. I don't have a theory for what it might be yet.

Here's one: they'll offer it only to post-menopausal women.

Shelby | December 19, 2005, 12:57pm | #

So when the new cervical cancer vaccine is submitted to the FDA, will the agency choose chastity or science?

What are the journalistic guidelines on use of rhetorical questions?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 19, 2005, 1:08pm | #

I guess I'm behind the times, I never realized that you could get cancer from a virus. Maybe I need to get out more.

bill | December 19, 2005, 1:08pm | #

What's the big deal? Just keep it voluntary. Those that want to protect their children can get it, and the religious nuts can watch their little darlings die a horrible death from cancer.

Serafina | December 19, 2005, 1:15pm | #

At this rate, we'll soon need a prescription for condoms.

mediageek | December 19, 2005, 1:25pm | #

TWC-

Evidently recent research has shown that certain virus-based diseases can significantly increase one's chance of developing cancer.

I'm not up on all the big words, but evidently this is one of them.

David | December 19, 2005, 1:36pm | #

What's the big deal? Just keep it voluntary. Those that want to protect their children can get it, and the religious nuts can watch their little darlings die a horrible death from cancer.

That's the trouble, bill. The handful, and I'm sure that it's a handful of so-called persecuted faithful don't want it to be voluntary, they don't want it allowed at all. They prefer everything in life that deviates from their worldview to have an awful consequence and are much comfortable with a Sex= possible horrible death mindset as a deterrent for women.

fyodor | December 19, 2005, 1:38pm | #

What's the big deal? Just keep it voluntary. Those that want to protect their children can get it, and the religious nuts can watch their little darlings die a horrible death from cancer.

No argument here. Hopefully we'll get the FDA approval that will allow that to happen. Legally.

Timothy | December 19, 2005, 1:41pm | #

They prefer everything in life that deviates from their worldview to have an awful consequence and are much comfortable with a Sex= possible horrible death mindset as a deterrent for women.

They figure if they've got to put up with frigid, unloving women who just lay there the rest of us should too.

Timothy | December 19, 2005, 1:42pm | #

They prefer everything in life that deviates from their worldview to have an awful consequence and are much comfortable with a Sex= possible horrible death mindset as a deterrent for women.

They figure if they've got to put up with frigid, unloving women who just lay there the rest of us should too.

Bonar Law | December 19, 2005, 1:53pm | #

(Libertarian disclaimer: Of course, I am in favor of experimental medicines being available as to adults. I am in favor of experimental medicines being available to children, too, if certain basic studies as to safety and efficacy have been performed (on an expedited basis), with parents having the primary responsibility of weighing the various risks, because they are more likely than some bureaucratic panel to know what's best for their kids, therefore let's abolish or fundamentally restructure the FDA, etc).

I think the argument of "inoculate children against all varieties of sexual diseases, never mind whether this legitimizes illicit sex or not" would be more credible if the people making this argument weren't so often sexual liberationists who want to normalize risky behavior.

I'm not speaking primarily of *Reason.* The folks I have in mind are the types of people who would never consider "harm reduction strategies" where tobacco is concerned (That filthy, evil weed! Do not touch! Do not look at it! Do not even think about inhaling it!), but who have a very accepting attitude toward casual sex, even by minors.

Dave | December 19, 2005, 1:58pm | #

Explain to me again on what legal grounds the religers will prevent this from being distributed. And in that case, can we prevent them from recieving any medicines/nutrients/breathable gasses they need to survive?
Prevent a brain-dead (brain-less, really) woman from getting life support, and you're a murderer. Prevent healthy people from getting a vaccine to prevent disease and you're what?

Dave | December 19, 2005, 2:00pm | #

By the way, let's not stop at vaccines. All medical treatment for STD's should be banned, because you deserve to die if you were having sex.

quasibill | December 19, 2005, 2:08pm | #

I think Jennifer is probably pretty close - I can see some sort of approval for women over the age of X (with X being significantly higher than 18) with an indication that it is not approved for ages less than X. Normally, M.D.'s will dispense "off label", but I can imagine if the FDA makes a sufficiently dire statement about use in young'uns, such as "prescriptions for those under the age of X is considered by the Agency as medical malpractice", there will be few doctors who will do it, if only for insurance reasons.

Of course, they'll have to massage the clinical results, but that's easy enough. In fact, if they just focus on Phase 1, they can probably argue that there is insufficient data about safety in women under the age of 30. Presto!

Smappy | December 19, 2005, 2:15pm | #

I happen to be religious, and if I ever have a daughter, I hope she will not be sexually active before marriage (the same as I currently hope this for my son).

That said, I can still imagine having my daughter vaccinated if for no other reason than not all sexual activity is voluntary. How would any parent feel if they refused vaccination on chastity grounds, then their daughter was raped? (Though I suppose this is a non-issue if repeated sexual contact is necessary for an appreciable increase in cancer risk.)

Even besides that, I don't want my daughter to be chaste because she's affraid of cervical cancer. I want her to do it out of moral character. What value is it to a religious parent that their child conforms to certain behavior patterns out of fear rather than conviction?

WSDave | December 19, 2005, 2:19pm | #

David,
"5$ says they choose chastity. C'mon, who wants some of this action?

Not me, but I think they're more likely to come up with some sort of half-assed compromise. I don't have a theory for what it might be yet."

They'll let 10-15 year olds have the injection, but also make them wear the scarlet letter.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 2:19pm | #

How would any parent feel if they refused vaccination on chastity grounds, then their daughter was raped?

According to Phyllis Schlafly, virtuous women do not suffer from sexual harassment. So just train your daughter to be a Good Girl who never Asks For It.

zach | December 19, 2005, 2:27pm | #

Bonar Law,

I think the argument of "inoculate children against all varieties of sexual diseases, never mind whether this legitimizes illicit sex or not" would be more credible if the people making this argument weren't so often sexual liberationists who want to normalize risky behavior.

The thing is, in many parts of the country, it's pretty normal already. Besides, there's no reason that one's position on casual sex should make their position on vaccines, STD treatment and the like less credible. The people most likely to come to such a conclusion are probably already part of the chastity-only camp.

zach | December 19, 2005, 2:31pm | #

Smappy, more to the point, what if your daughter suffers a momentary (or even long-term) lapse in judgment? Should she die for it if that can be avoided? Christianity is supposed to emphasize forgiveness. If effects of sexual indiscretion can be 'forgiven' in a sense through medical science, I see no reason why a Christian should be against it.

thoreau | December 19, 2005, 2:33pm | #

zach-

Forget about the daughter's lapse in judgement. What if the husband has a lapse in judgement, either during the marriage or even years earlier?

Surely there must be some religious conservatives who have a "good for nothing son in law."

Warren | December 19, 2005, 2:44pm | #

I can't understand what drives the religious right to pursue their hopeless quest to make sex seem unpleasant.

John | December 19, 2005, 2:50pm | #

My mother caught the HPV virus because her first husband was a dirtbag who slept around. It was in the 1960s before they knew it caused cancer. She got cervical cancer in the 70s, miraculously survived it, only to see it come back as bladder cancer in 2004 which killed her in just over a year. These people make me very angry to say the least. How can anyone be so stupid as to think the risk of more pre-martial sex somehow outweighs the benifit of preventing people from getting cancer? Sometimes I think there is not a hell because no one really deserves to be there. Then I see people like this and I wonder.

zach | December 19, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Perhaps a lack of experience with it.

VM | December 19, 2005, 2:54pm | #

"I can't understand what drives the religious right to pursue their hopeless quest to make sex seem unpleasant."


tammy. faye. bakker...

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 2:56pm | #

How can anyone be so stupid as to think the risk of more pre-martial sex somehow outweighs the benifit of preventing people from getting cancer?

The same way they can view STDs, or even pregnancy, as "punishment" for having sex.

mediageek | December 19, 2005, 2:59pm | #

"I can't understand what drives the religious right to pursue their hopeless quest to make sex seem unpleasant."

Because God only made sex for procreation.

Not fun.

And if you think sex is fun, then the Devil has won.

taiko | December 19, 2005, 3:04pm | #

Bonar,

"I think the argument of "inoculate children against all varieties of sexual diseases, never mind whether this legitimizes illicit sex or not" would be more credible if the people making this argument weren't so often sexual liberationists who want to normalize risky behavior."

Please explain to me how approving a vaccine which can apparently cut the chances of a woman getting cervical cancer equals normalizing risky behavior and legitimizes illicit sex.

"The folks I have in mind are the types of people who would never consider "harm reduction strategies" where tobacco is concerned (That filthy, evil weed! Do not touch! Do not look at it! Do not even think about inhaling it!), but who have a very accepting attitude toward casual sex, even by minors."

Again, please explain to me how approving a vaccine which can apparently cut the chances of a woman getting cervical cancer equals a "very accepting attitude toward casual sex, even by minors."

From what you wrote, I assume you're saying that approving this vaccine equals approving casual sex, even among minors, and thus an increase in "illicit sex"? Am I correct on this? If so, please explain this alleged causality.

Please use empirical data; not subjective ideas, beliefs, attitudes or false logic in your explanations.

Using this logic, I guess that since some people use guns for harmful/illegal purposes, we should then ban all guns because allowing them to the populace may encourage harmful/illegal behavior?

joe | December 19, 2005, 3:08pm | #

"According to Phyllis Schlafly, virtuous women do not suffer from sexual harassment."

Translation: I'm ronery. So ronery.

Uh, yeah, Phyllis. It's your virtue. That's it exactly.

Timothy | December 19, 2005, 3:08pm | #

I need a t-shirt that says "pre-marital sex is awesome!"

fyodor | December 19, 2005, 3:15pm | #

Bonar,

Yeah, some of the people are any side of any issue are liable to be hypocrites. Since ad hominen is a fallacy, who gives a flying fuck?

zach | December 19, 2005, 3:21pm | #

Taiko, I don't think he was talking about this issue specifically.

joe | December 19, 2005, 3:22pm | #

fyodor,

That's true, but I can see what Bonar's saying.

It isn't enough just to be right on the logic. Wouldn't you irresponsible, puppy-blending libertoids like to, I don't know, win on an issue for a change?

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 3:23pm | #

I love the way many small government libertarians instantly convert into Big Government Democrats if it means sticking a finger in the collective eye of religious conservatives. If the Fed.Gov were to decree tomorrow that all Americans are required to have the number "666" tattooed on their foreheads, I'm sure many of you Reasonoids would eagerly support it simply because the Religious Right would be against it.

This isn't a medical issue, it's a parental rights issue. The fear is that once the vaccine is available, it will become mandatory, meaning that parents would have no say in the issue whatsoever.

And despite the heart-rending hypothetical scenarios listed above, the odds of a couple of high school kids getting HPV from a one-time tryst or "mistake" are pretty low. The risk of getting HPV -- like all sexually-transmitted diseases -- increases proportionally with the number of different sexual partners. Which is why HPV occurs mostly among prostitutes and those who frequent them.

I don't have anything against the vaccine, or vaccines in general. But they're not magic bullets. And until my daughters reach 18 years of age, I should have control over what vaccines they are given -- not the government.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 3:27pm | #

This isn't a medical issue, it's a parental rights issue. The fear is that once the vaccine is available, it will become mandatory, meaning that parents would have no say in the issue whatsoever.

So the best thing to do is make sure NOBODY can get it?

And for that matter, why should parents have the "right" to increase their daughter's chances of getting cancer?

thoreau | December 19, 2005, 3:29pm | #

Captain Holly-

Nobody here has said a word in favor of mandatory vaccination. What we've said is that the law shouldn't bar people from choosing to receive the vaccine, or bar parents from choosing to vaccinate their children.

Grammy Winner R. Kelly | December 19, 2005, 3:30pm | #

"They'll let 10-15 year olds have the injection, but also make them wear the scarlet letter."

Sweet! That'll make it so much more convenient.... Uh, wait, this blog isn't readable by the general public, is it?

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 3:33pm | #

"I'm not opposed to the polio vaccine, I'm just opposed to the idea that I'll be FORCED to vaccinate my child. So to avoid that, I'll just make sure nobody gets the vaccine."

--Grandpa Holly, ca. 1950

taiko | December 19, 2005, 3:41pm | #

Zach,

If not, then I extend my apologies to Bonar, but it seems to me that he was pretty clear in asserting a connection between approving this vaccine and condoning "illicit" sex and thus an increase in casual sex overall.

fyodor | December 19, 2005, 3:42pm | #

joe,

What the hell are you talking about? Best I can tell Bonar's complaining about feel-good sex-positive liberals who nevertheless back the nanny-state when it suits them, not libertarians. Either you missed that or your irony has one or more too many layers to be deciphered.

John | December 19, 2005, 3:43pm | #

I don't have anything against the vaccine, or vaccines in general. But they're not magic bullets. And until my daughters reach 18 years of age, I should have control over what vaccines they are given -- not the government.

I am as pro family sovereighnty as anyone, but I don't buy that. There is more at stake here than just your right to deprive your daughter of the vacine. First, what is so special about this vacine? If you have a right to say no to this one, why doesn't the Christian scientist faith healer down the street have a right to say no to MMR shots or polio shots? I don't see a difference. I think the government has a legitimate right to step in and require vacines. You may be a consenting adult aware of the risks of not taking a vacine but a child certainly isn't. Why should you be allowed to put your child at risk? The child certainly isn't making an informed choice. I think with regard to vacines the government has every right to require them.

Brian Courts | December 19, 2005, 3:44pm | #

As others have touched on, once again this wouldn't be an issue if not for the religionist's demonization of anything sexual. To use their silly mythology to tell everyone that sex is immoral, or that you're a bad person if you dare to partake in it before your father hands you over to your husband, is utter nonsense that needs to be confronted. It has so permeated society that even relatively non-religious people spout this stuff without a thought. Even our vocabulary is littered with pejorative terms like "promiscuous" for anyone who dares to enjoy sex in a way not sanctioned by a bunch of ignorant men who lived thousands of years ago. How many people have lived unnecessarily tormented lives because of the cognitive dissonance caused by what their screwed-up parents and church taught them? Of course, you're free to believe sex is immoral if you want, but it is only a religious belief and as such is held without as shred of evidence. That this is hardly the level of evidence we should demand of those who would use such beliefs to make medical or social policy should be so obvious as to be laughable were one to claim otherwise. It is bad enough that people rely on such silly beliefs to mess up their own kids, but they shouldn't be allowed to use it to mess up everyone else's.

And no, this is not about mandatory vaccination this is about FDA approval so that people may choose to protect their children.

Seamus | December 19, 2005, 3:45pm | #

"And for that matter, why should parents have the 'right' to increase their daughter's chances of getting cancer?"

Imagine, if you will, a vaccine that would significantly reduce the possibility of contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. Let us imagine further that the vaccine has some risk of harmful side effects, as all vaccines do. I think parents should have the right to refuse to expose their children to a greater-than-zero chance of incurring those side effects, if they are reasonably confident that, because of upbringing, native good sense, or whatever, their children will not take up smoking. Under circumstances as I have described, the parents would be making a reasonable judgment that the dangers of the vaccine would outweigh the dangers of not vaccinating.

That's, of course, unless you think you have to act on the assumption that the children will practice risky behavior.

"That said, I can still imagine having my daughter vaccinated if for no other reason than not all sexual activity is voluntary. How would any parent feel if they refused vaccination on chastity grounds, then their daughter was raped?"

Wow, you're so right. By that reasoning, of course, all girls and women should be injected with Depo Provera, since you never know when they might be raped, and you'd feel awfully foolish if your daughter got knocked up because you didn't think ahead and have her injected.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 3:47pm | #

Nice distortion, you guys. Please show me where I wrote that no one should receive the vaccine. In fact, I would like to see direct, unmanipulated, in context quotes that show Jerry Falwell and the like don't wish to see the vaccine made available to adults.

What concerns us Parental Rights activists is the very attitude I see motivating some of the comments here -- that only a reactionary troglodyte would deny the vaccine to his children. It's a subtle form of Nanny-Statism, based on the idea that you know what is better for my children that I do.

If I remember correctly, when some politicians said, with good reason, that parents who irresponsibly provide children with alcohol should be prosecuted, Reasonoids were outraged.

Yet when religious conservatives say they want to reserve the right to dictate what medications their children are given, why then they're killing children, you know.

Seamus | December 19, 2005, 3:49pm | #

"If you have a right to say no to this one, why doesn't the Christian scientist faith healer down the street have a right to say no to MMR shots or polio shots? I don't see a difference. I think the government has a legitimate right to step in and require vacines."

Well, how about this: People get measles, mumps, rubella, or polio just from being in the same place as someone else who has it; you have to do a little more to get MMR, and if you aren't doing that little bit more, the HPV vaccine is of no use to you (and in fact is a net harm to you, since it exposes you to side effects without any countervailing benefit).

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 3:52pm | #

By that reasoning, of course, all girls and women should be injected with Depo Provera, since you never know when they might be raped, and you'd feel awfully foolish if your daughter got knocked up because you didn't think ahead and have her injected.

Pregnancy and cancer are two very different things, Seamus.

that only a reactionary troglodyte would deny the vaccine to his children.

Why WOULD you deny your daughter this vaccine, then, Captain Holly? Assume it's been tested and found to be safe, why would you not want her to have it?

fyodor | December 19, 2005, 3:52pm | #

Leave it to this group to find a tangent to pick a fight over when we pretty much all agreed on the original issue. Guess it keeps things from getting too boring around here!

Seamus | December 19, 2005, 3:52pm | #

And even with respect to MMR and polio, there's a lot of difference between choosing not to get the vaccine, against the chance that your child might be exposed, and choosing to deny your child treatment once he has come down with the disease.

Manco | December 19, 2005, 3:53pm | #

Brian:

John just above is advocating government forced vaccinations. So this IS about mandatory, fascistic government intrustion.

Larry A | December 19, 2005, 3:53pm | #

The folks I have in mind are the types of people ? who have a very accepting attitude toward casual sex, even by minors.

I prefer these folks to the ones who want to make all sex risky.

In this case, a woman inoculated at 12 would be protected if at 30 she married someone with HPV.

IMO most folks who want to allow parents to protect their children don't necessarily have "a very accepting attitude toward casual sex." But they realize that somewhere between puberty at age 12 and marriage at 25-30 most normal people are going to have at least one relationship. Times have changed a little since the days when girls went through puberty at 15 and got married by the time they were 17.

Seamus | December 19, 2005, 3:54pm | #

"Pregnancy and cancer are two very different things, Seamus."

OK, then: By that reasoning all children should be vaccinated against rabies, because you never know when they might be bitten by a rabid bat. (I can see it now: "How can we deny our children the protection we routinely demand for our dogs and cats?")

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 3:55pm | #

You obviously don't have any kids, do you Brian?

The unwavering pattern for the past 30 years has been once a vaccine is approved, it's only a short time before it's required, even if the vaccine isn't very effective, or the disease is quite benign (Chickenpox is a perfect example).

What was once a few vaccinations when I was a kid has nearly doubled for my children. Approval is usually tantamount to requirement, especially in the eyes of Public School nurses.

Seamus | December 19, 2005, 4:00pm | #

"The unwavering pattern for the past 30 years has been once a vaccine is approved, it's only a short time before it's required, even if the vaccine isn't very effective, or the disease is quite benign (Chickenpox is a perfect example)."

Preach it, Captain.

I'm still looking for someone with chicken pox to infect my three youngest children so they can acquire a natural immunity before they reach puberty (at which point I'll have them vaccinated, because the risks of post-pubertal chicken pox are so much greater than the risks to them now). But so many kids have been vaccinated that it's hard to find any active vectors. (Maybe I could arrange to come down with shingles again, which is how my oldest got infected.)

Smappy | December 19, 2005, 4:09pm | #

Seamus:

You bring up a valid point: the vaccination should only be selected if the probability of infection is high enough. So my previous post is only sound to the extent of the probability of a daughter being raped and the probability that such sexual contact would appreciably elevate her likelihood of cervical cancer.

What are those probabilities? I have no clue. I'll be more likely to investigate if and when I have a daugther. But my priors are that they are higher than my children's chances of contracting rabies from an animal bite; and even if that is not the case rabies is pretty easily treated, so I'm not entirely sure your extreme example bears scrutiny.

Smappy | December 19, 2005, 4:11pm | #

Correction: the vaccination should only be selected if the probability of infection is high enough *and the outcome severe enough.*

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 4:11pm | #

Why WOULD you deny your daughter this vaccine, then, Captain Holly? Assume it's been tested and found to be safe, why would you not want her to have it?

She can have it when she becomes an adult, just as she can drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or have all the abortions she wants to. When she's an adult, she's no longer my responsibility. I'll be disappointed if she chooses to do such things, but she's an adult and it's a (mostly) free country.

Until then, I have responsibility to make sure she grows up healthy and happy. For some parents, that means giving their kids booze on their 16th birthday. For me, that means teaching her to not sleep around until she's married, or at least until she's old enough to handle the consequences.

Furthermore, even though she might be vaccinated against HPV, she would still be susceptible to HSV-2, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphillis, HCV, HIV, etc. If you're taking steps to avoid those diseases, you don't need a vaccination to prevent HPV.

rob | December 19, 2005, 4:13pm | #

"The risk of getting HPV -- like all sexually-transmitted diseases -- increases proportionally with the number of different sexual partners. Which is why HPV occurs mostly among prostitutes and those who frequent them." - Capt Holly

Got some evidence to back up the idea that HPV mostly occurs in those who frequent prostitutes? Nah, I didn't think so.

Parents rights issue??? How is it up to the parents? When it comes to sex and its consequences, as soon as a human being is capable of MAKING the choice, all the parental hand-wringing in the world can't stop that person (whether 16 or 65) from doing it - whether its choosing to have sex or not, take illegal drugs or not, eat red meat or become a vegan.

So you might as well protect them as best you can - certainly with sound advice but equally so with medical immunization. This is a no-brainer, and trying to act like there's a reason NOT to immunize is just lunacy in the guise of morality.

Brian Courts | December 19, 2005, 4:15pm | #

The unwavering pattern for the past 30 years has been once a vaccine is approved, it's only a short time before it's required, even if the vaccine isn't very effective, or the disease is quite benign (Chickenpox is a perfect example).

So even if that is true, what is the point? Should the FDA deny approval of something that will undeniably prevent some cancers and hence some people from dying a horrible death because you worry that someday it will become mandatory? That would seem incredibly selfish. I may well agree that it shouldn't be mandatory (though unless the risk associated with the vaccination turns out to be more than the typically miniscule risk of other vaccines, I can't see why one would not get it, but let that be your choice) but that is a fight for another day. The issue at hand is letting people have access to technology that can prevent cancer. There is no excuse for using the force of government to prevent the use of that technology.

Ron Bailey | December 19, 2005, 4:17pm | #

Captain Holly: You wrote:

And despite the heart-rending hypothetical scenarios listed above, the odds of a couple of high school kids getting HPV from a one-time tryst or "mistake" are pretty low. The risk of getting HPV -- like all sexually-transmitted diseases -- increases proportionally with the number of different sexual partners. Which is why HPV occurs mostly among prostitutes and those who frequent them.

However, the Centers for Disease Control suggests that the prevalence of HPV is much wider than you suggest:

"Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year."

Do you really think that 80% of all U.S. women are prostitutes?

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 4:22pm | #

Until then, I have responsibility to make sure she grows up healthy and happy. For some parents, that means giving their kids booze on their 16th birthday. For me, that means teaching her to not sleep around until she's married, or at least until she's old enough to handle the consequences.

I see. So in your world, "making sure she grows up healthy and happy" includes "making sure that if she has sex, she'll damn well suffer some consequences."

zach | December 19, 2005, 4:22pm | #

Captain Holly, the fact remains we're talking about a vaccine and not cigarettes, alcohol or an abortion. A vaccine that apparently is twice as effective if taken between the ages of 10 and 14. Giving your daughter the vaccine is not telling her "now go out and fuck somebody". And since the possibility is very real that she'll choose a different lifestyle than yourself after she's an adult, it only makes sense to take steps that could protect her later in life. I'm not saying that such a vaccine ought to be mandatory, only that your reasons for not wanting her to have it don't really hold up.

mtc | December 19, 2005, 4:22pm | #

I wonder if the same people will try to stop the approval of a working AIDS vaccine when (if?) it ever comes around.

rob | December 19, 2005, 4:23pm | #

"She can have it when she becomes an adult, just as she can drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or have all the abortions she wants to." - Capt Holly

Do you actually live in a world where your permission is required for your children to do things you disapprove of? Nope. (Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.)

To quote John Turturro in Happy Gilmore, "Never understimate the sneakiness." Your kids - like all kids - are going to do things based on more than just your say-so. Your approval or disapproval is certainly something they'll take into consideration, but teenage libido is a VERY powerful counter-argument...

Smappy | December 19, 2005, 4:23pm | #

Well, Ron just helped to fill in the probability side of my "to vaccinate or no" calculus. Got any estimates on the effects of HPV contraction for women, Ron?

APL | December 19, 2005, 4:26pm | #

What concerns us Parental Rights activists is the very attitude I see motivating some of the comments here -- that only a reactionary troglodyte would deny the vaccine to his children. It's a subtle form of Nanny-Statism, based on the idea that you know what is better for my children that I do.
That's because the protection provided by vaccination is primarily through herd immunity. Vaccinating your child protects my child. It's public health in the most meaningful sense of the word.

John | December 19, 2005, 4:27pm | #

Well, how about this: People get measles, mumps, rubella, or polio just from being in the same place as someone else who has it; you have to do a little more to get MMR, and if you aren't doing that little bit more, the HPV vaccine is of no use to you (and in fact is a net harm to you, since it exposes you to side effects without any countervailing benefit).


How do you know that you will not do the activity that will cause you to get the virus? More importantly, you are surely not nieve enough to beleive that your daughter would never do such a thing. The risks of side effects of the vacine are a lot smaller than the risks of your daughter having sex, regardless of you believing to the contrary.

Captain Holly,

Your daughter will get this when she is an adult? Getting the vacine is not having sex. There is nothing adult about it. You are absulutely correct in pointing out that the vacine does not prevent HIV and other STDs. All the more reason why you would not encourage your daughter to have sex even after she had this vacine. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough or any child dumb enough to believe that it was okay to go have promiscuous sex just because you had this vacine. Again, are you really do sure that your daughter will never have sex that you would want to have her at risk of getting cancer? What if they came up with a vacine for HIV, I suppose you would deny her that too, because she is not an adult. Since when does being a child entitled you to less protection from disease?

To everyone else, Yes I support governement mandated vacinations. There is a role for the government in public health. Vacinations have saved millions of lives. I do not think society should have to bear the increased costs associated with your child getting a preventable disease because you are a moron with some wierd superstition about vacines. If you beleive that makes me a facist, then you are a wingnut of the first order and ought to move out to a compound in West Texas or Wyoming or somewhere, where you can be with your own kind.

Smappy | December 19, 2005, 4:27pm | #

"To quote John Turturro in Happy Gilmore, 'Never understimate the sneakiness.'"

That's Mr. Deeds, Rob. John Turturro wasn't in Happy Gilmore.

To quote Carl Weathers (who was in Happy Gilmore), you might try, "Spoken like a true asshole."

girlgirl | December 19, 2005, 4:28pm | #

HPV is incredibly common--I think I read that some 70% of sexually active people have it or have had it. That means you could "slip up" just once and contract it--the chances are pretty darn good. And parents--it's pretty easy to have sex without your parents knowing. Even if you were raised in a so-called "good" family. Happens all the time.

rob | December 19, 2005, 4:31pm | #

me: D'oh! I meant Mr. Deeds! I meant Mr. Deeds!

smacky as game show host: Sorry, too late. But we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including a vaccination that will help your kids not contract a totally preventable disease!

smacky, I think your quote was probably better anyway....

David | December 19, 2005, 4:33pm | #

How did this thread degenerate from debating whether the FDA should allow religious/ social reasons to impact whether a vaccine is approved to accusations of libertarians supporting mandatory vaccines forced upon children over the parental rights?


I've gone through the list of mandatory vaccines for several states. It is indeed longer than those that existed when I was young but it is certainly doesn't encompass all existing vaccines. If the logic is that no vaccine should be allowed because some are mandatory, why bother with science or medicine at all at all? If the argument is that no vaccine should be mandatory, I don't see the relevance in this case. The central issue is whether the benefits of scientific progress should be denied to satisfy the religious beliefs or social engineering aims of a few.


Very few people who post here will argue in favor of government forcing citizens to do anthing. Those who argue in favor of parental rights usually want a governemnt enforced outcome of one form or another. I find that parental rights has come to the mean the rights of a group of parents to order the whole of society around the way they want to raise their kids. If they dislike something, no one else may be allowed to do it either.

rob | December 19, 2005, 4:34pm | #

What David said!

John | December 19, 2005, 4:38pm | #

Good point David,

I think that parents should control most things, but that vacines are different. Its one of the few areas in which the government has a legitimate interest. I am willing to pay extra costs for freedom and do not beleive that just because someone's behavior costs society that it should necessarily be prohibited. But like everything else, there is a limit to this logic. To pay the extra costs associated with sick children because their parents are too ignorent to understand the need for vacines is too much even for me. We can draw lines. Everything doesn't have to be absolute and we do not have to fall down every slipery slope. I do not see how requiring childhood vacinations is going to bring the dark night of facism down over America.

Eddy | December 19, 2005, 4:42pm | #

Just to introduce another tangent...So is this a female only vaccine or could it be used in males to reduce rates of transmission?

And just to be a prick, I call bullshit on the "twice as effective" claim. Inasmuch as being effective 6 times in 10 million is "twice as effective" as 3 in 10 million, until I see some legit numbers I ain't betting on any dog in this race.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 4:44pm | #

I find that parental rights has come to the mean the rights of a group of parents to order the whole of society around the way they want to raise their kids. If they dislike something, no one else may be allowed to do it either.

That explains most of it, but Parental Rights are also a popular rallying cry among the type of person who emphasizes that this is "my child," as opposed to "my child."

Eddy | December 19, 2005, 4:48pm | #

I almost forgot, it could be that the purpose of the 2X effective claim was made in the first place was to give it numbers good enough to pass the sniff test.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 4:52pm | #

Comments getting bounced. Is there some sort of rule on embedded links?

Brian Courts | December 19, 2005, 4:53pm | #

I almost forgot, it could be that the purpose of the 2X effective claim was made in the first place was to give it numbers good enough to pass the sniff test.

There is no claim that it's twice as effective. The result of the study showed twice as many antibodies in the blood of those 10-14 compared to those 15-25.

zach | December 19, 2005, 4:53pm | #

To pay the extra costs associated with sick children because their parents are too ignorent to understand the need for vacines is too much even for me.

What makes the extra costs associated with that so much harder to bear than the extra costs associated with, say, drugs? After all, you're talking about stupid decisions made by parents regarding their kids vs. stupid decisions made by people regarding themselves.

I tend not to buy any of these "extra costs" arguments. The more persuasive argument is the "herd immunization" one raised above; that is, your kid being immunized helps my kid to be immunized. But since most kids are going to get an important vaccine anyway, it seems to me like a non-issue.

zach | December 19, 2005, 4:57pm | #

There is no claim that it's twice as effective. The result of the study showed twice as many antibodies in the blood of those 10-14 compared to those 15-25.

I guess that could bended to mean it's "twice as effective", since the desired effect of a vaccine is to create antibodies. Deceptive though.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 4:59pm | #

John | December 19, 2005, 5:01pm | #

Jennifer

You and I both are incredible statists. How dare we expect parents to care for their children!!

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 5:03pm | #

How dare we expect parents to care for their children!!

It's not even that we expect parents to care for their children; it's that we think there should be legal consequences for those who don't.

James Feldman | December 19, 2005, 5:05pm | #

I agree with you Jennifer, but only to the point that I acknowledge that some sort of exception must be made for people who are Christian Scientists, for example. There are some essential rights such as religious freedom that have to be respected, in my view.

zach | December 19, 2005, 5:05pm | #

I support vaccination laws for the same reason I support laws which say "Parents are not allowed to starve their children to death, so if you refuse to feed your kids you'll lose custody of them, as well as your freedom."

Again, much more persuasive than the "extra costs" argument.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 5:08pm | #

I agree with you Jennifer, but only to the point that I acknowledge that some sort of exception must be made for people who are Christian Scientists, for example. There are some essential rights such as religious freedom that have to be respected, in my view.

I actually disagree with you in that regard. As an adult, you can refuse your own medication, but not refuse it for your kids. I doubt you'd support a religious exemption allowing a Muslim parent to cut off his daughter's clitoris; why should medical care be different?

But I'll be willing to compromise--fine, let parents refuse to medicate their kids, but if the kid dies the parents face murder charges. And if the kid does not die, but suffers ANY long-term damage from the lack of medical treatment, then when the kid grows up he can sue his parents.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:09pm | #

Incidentally, HPV is prevalent in society -- but the majority of infections are asymptomatic (that means you don't get sick) and self-limited. Only a few of the more than 100 HPV strains are associated with increased risk for cancer.

Or, as the CDC fact sheet points out: "Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."

Eddy | December 19, 2005, 5:09pm | #

Still, twice one is only two and means if it sucked in the 15-25 group, it only sucks less in the 10-14 group. Which brings up another question, how did the "groups" get determined in the first place? I find it hard to believe you get 2X antibodies at 14 than you do at 15. I'm sure there is some statistical correlation but I'm equally sure there is room for further refinement unless the standard deviation is just wonky.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:13pm | #

Oh, and for you skeptics who believe that STDs occur with equal frequency in virgins and sluts, here's a tidbit:

"Having multiple sexual partners over a short time period and during a lifetime increases HIV/STD risk."

http://www.indiana.edu/~aids/fact/fact1.html

zach | December 19, 2005, 5:14pm | #

I agree with you Jennifer, but only to the point that I acknowledge that some sort of exception must be made for people who are Christian Scientists, for example. There are some essential rights such as religious freedom that have to be respected, in my view.

I disagree, because I think that if a law is to be passed, there shouldn't be religious exceptions to it. After all, what really makes a religious objection to vaccinations better than an objection on the grounds of "I hate my wife and I want my kids to suffer"? The end result remains that the kid doesn't get the vaccination.

A legal requirement to get your kids vaccinated, make no mistake, is a governmental intrusion on your rights as a parent. A religious exemption clause seems like an attempt to mask that fact. The question is, is it such an intrusion necessary to protect the rights of the child?

Eddy | December 19, 2005, 5:15pm | #

But I'll be willing to compromise--fine, let parents refuse to medicate their kids, but if the kid dies the parents face murder charges. And if the kid does not die, but suffers ANY long-term damage from the lack of medical treatment, then when the kid grows up he can sue his parents.

Jennifer,
Does this mean that if I go along with the states choice and my kid dies or suffers ANY long-term damage because of the medical treatment, I can sue the state or try the state for murder?

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:18pm | #

On my assertion that prostitutes and their customers are at higher risk for HPV, that notorious right-wing group the Alan Guttmacher Institute produced a study that showed brother workers "were more likely to be infected with each of nine carcinogenic types of HPV tested."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2715401.html

smacky | December 19, 2005, 5:19pm | #

smacky as game show host: Sorry, too late. But we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including a vaccination that will help your kids not contract a totally preventable disease!

smacky, I think your quote was probably better anyway....


uh, rob, I should point out to you that you weren't and haven't actually been talking to me. You were talking to "Smappy", someone who ripped off my internet handle for some reason. The only reason I can offer as to why someone would pick such a similar name would be: "to confuse people".

-- smacky (just passing thru)

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:19pm | #

edit above: brothel workers

Akira MacKenzie | December 19, 2005, 5:20pm | #

I guess I must sit in the "statist" category with Jennifer and John on this one. For some reason, I kind of like not getting small pox, polio, rubella, and other nasty, deadly illnesses that I wouldn't wish upon anyone*, especially children.

*Well... almost anyone, Saddam could use a nice, terminal case of cervical cancer. That is, of course, if he had a cervix.

zach | December 19, 2005, 5:22pm | #

Cpt. Holly, what exactly is the point of your assertion that "prostitutes and their customers are at higher risk for HPV"? Should the FDA not approve the vaccine, because it may make prostitutes and their customers healthier?

Eddy | December 19, 2005, 5:23pm | #

almost anyone, Saddam could use a nice, terminal case of cervical cancer. That is, of course, if he had a cervix.

Where do I send my donation for the surgery to give him one?

David | December 19, 2005, 5:23pm | #

Oh, and for you skeptics who believe that STDs occur with equal frequency in virgins and sluts, here's a tidbit:

"Having multiple sexual partners over a short time period and during a lifetime increases HIV/STD risk."

Sorry Captain, I don't see anyone here arguing against the notion that more partners equals more risk. I have a question, other than morally demonizing sex, is there reason why people should be punished with a preventable disease? Does a slut deserve cancer?

smacky | December 19, 2005, 5:24pm | #

Where do I send my donation for the surgery to give him one?

Send your funds to the Secret Cervix. They're working on it.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:34pm | #

And finally, from the NIH, we find that two of the main risk factors for cervical cancer are:

Early age at first sexual intercourse.

and

Multiple sexual partners and/or partners who have multiple partners.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000893.htm

For some, that is a justification to vaccine every young girl with the HPV vaccine. But, pray tell, how is the vaccine going to protect them from all the other STD's their promiscuous behavior is exposing them to?

James Feldman | December 19, 2005, 5:36pm | #

After all, what really makes a religious objection to vaccinations better than an objection on the grounds of "I hate my wife and I want my kids to suffer"?

Well, I think that the First Amendment is what makes a religious objection better than simple hatred for wives and daughters.

This is difficult stuff, I admit, and I am not a lawyer. There are obvious examples of religious practices, such as genital mutilation, which are not and should not be acceptable. Then there are more murky questions. If an Amish child falls and breaks his neck, should we rush him to the hospital in an ambulance? Should we give penicillin to a Christian Scientist child with pneumonia? In these cases the child faces imminent death - but on the other hand, does my atheist belief that preserving life whenever possible trump their belief that doing so will cost their soul or their child's soul? Do not both of us have the child's best interests at heart?

James Feldman | December 19, 2005, 5:38pm | #

Cpt. Holly - Why does it have to? Is it not worth it to protect them from one disease, simply because that does not insure that they will never get sick again?

zach | December 19, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Well Mr. Feldman, the First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law respecting an institution of religion. So, a law with a religious exemption could be seen as violating it. Not that it matters much, because I realize religious exemptions are very much a part of law in the U.S. I was simply stating my philosophical objection to them.

But, pray tell, how is the vaccine going to protect them from all the other STD's their promiscuous behavior is exposing them to?

No one is saying that it will.

Stevo Darkly | December 19, 2005, 5:39pm | #

From what you wrote, I assume you're saying that approving this vaccine equals approving casual sex, even among minors, and thus an increase in "illicit sex"? Am I correct on this? If so, please explain this alleged causality.

This quote makes me think something is missing from this conversation. I didn't see it explicitly stated in the post or the first couple of links that I checked, but a woman's change of getting cervical cancer is much higher if she begins sexual activity at an earlier age. In other words, a girl who starts having sex at 14 is more likely to get cervical cancer than a girl who starts at, I dunno, 18 or 20.

In other words, this vaccine is likely to be far less a boon to a girl who waits until she's a legal adult to take it, than for a sexually active girl who takes it an an earlier age.

And these facts are why some people fret that use of the vacine would encourage having more sex at earlier ages, by reducing one of the negative consequences.

However, if I had a daughter, even though I'd rather she put off having sex until she was more mature and in a stable, long-lasting relationship, I'd have her get the vaccine at a young age anyway. I think Smappy (the unsmacky) brought up some good points. If a girl is coerced into having sex, or has a momentary lapse in judgment, or maybe gets taken advantage of while intoxicated or something, I don't think she "deserves" an increased risk of cancer at a result. (Although I think it takes more than very occasional sexual activity to increase the risk.)

Plus, kids are barely deterred from sex by the risk of pregnancy and STDs as it is. I don't think the risk of cancer would deter them much more.

And finally, even if you believe that reserving sex for a more mature age, in a stable and long-lasting relationship, is the virtuous course, well, chastity is a lot like charity. It's a lot more virtuous if you choose it when you don't have a gun (or a cancer) to your head, ainnit?

Finally, I was going to say, at least I'm comforted by the fact that, as a late bloomer, my chances of contracting cervical cancer are practically nil. But Akira's closing comment of December 19, 2005 05:20 PM kinda shot the legs out from under that one.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:40pm | #

David:

You obviously missed this gem from joe:

Got some evidence to back up the idea that HPV mostly occurs in those who frequent prostitutes? Nah, I didn't think so.

I'm responding to comments from long ago because a long response I tried to post got bounced.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:44pm | #

Stevo:

Okay. You decide to give your daughter a vaccine against HPV. Fair enough. As a parent, I'm not going to stand in your way. But answer this:

How is said vaccine going to protect her against all the other STDs she is going to run the risk of contracting through her promiscuity, especially that deadly one, HIV?

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 5:48pm | #

So Zach, if you're admitting that the HPV vaccine isn't a magic bullet, why I am being irresponsible for not giving it to my daughter?

Stevo Darkly | December 19, 2005, 6:02pm | #

How is said vaccine going to protect her against all the other STDs she is going to run the risk of contracting through her promiscuity, especially that deadly one, HIV?

Oh, it won't. And locking my door when I leave home won't stop someone from breaking in through a window. But I lock my door anyway.

But I take your point, that no one can be protected from all consequences of unwise behavior by a vaccine shot. You have to train your kid in the right behavior too. The vaccine is just one small part of a full arsenal of protection. But assuming it's safe, effective and affordable, I see no reason not to use it.

Shem | December 19, 2005, 6:07pm | #

Captain Holly-The cellular changes that can cause cervical cancer are just as likely to happen cases which present no symptoms.

I wonder if you could summarize your argument. You started claiming that numbers don't justify vaccination, shifted to "parental rights" when that didn't work out, finally landing on some seemingly unrelated points about how promiscuous people are more likely to get STDs. Are you just really lousy at playing Devil's Advocate or is there some actual rationale behind your position?

Nick | December 19, 2005, 6:08pm | #

I can find nuts out there who object to NASA studying comets because it might mess up their horoscopes. That doesn't mean those programs are controversial or are going to be cut on that basis. There is a huge distance from finding some nut out there who objects to the vaccine and claiming it is opposed by religious conservatives in general.

And I think Plan B is a bit of a different story as there is a perfectly valid ethical position accepted by many people that a person gets some ethical rights at the moment of conception, which the drug itself will violate. I don't think there are any people who are arguing that cancer has rights (well, ok, I'm sure there is someone out there who believes that, but it is a much less common position than the argument that a fertalized egg has rights).

David | December 19, 2005, 6:10pm | #

Captain Holly,

It won't prevent anything except what it's designed for(like a bullet-proof vest is worthles agaist a head-shot), but it won't be able to do even that if left unapproved for reasons having nothing to do with safety.

Even assuming that your own daughter will remain abstinent until marriage, do you know where your son in-law has been?

Brian Courts | December 19, 2005, 6:11pm | #

David said: Sorry Captain, I don't see anyone here arguing against the notion that more partners equals more risk. I have a question, other than morally demonizing sex, is there reason why people should be punished with a preventable disease? Does a slut deserve cancer?

To which Captain Holly replied: You obviously missed this gem from joe:

>>Got some evidence to back up the idea that HPV mostly occurs in those who frequent prostitutes? Nah, I didn't think so. (emphasis mine)

That makes no sense Capatain Holly. The comment you are responding to does not in any way imply that risk is not correlated with number of partners. Nobody would deny that. Are you saying that most cases of HPV are associated with prostitution? If not then David's point stands, and if so, then you're just plain factually wrong.

rob | December 19, 2005, 6:15pm | #

smacky - My bad.

Capt Holly - You didn't say that risk increases with number of partners or even that frequenting the services of prostitutes get it more often, what you said was "Which is why HPV occurs mostly among prostitutes and those who frequent them."

I'd agree that more partners = more risk. But that's definitely not what you were saying. You were essentially saying that the people who get the disease are prostitutes and johns. That's obviously not true, and even if it were, vaccinating everyone we can still makes sense - even non-prostitutes and non-johns.

Even your daughter - that way, if your daughter marries a scumbag who commmits adultery, it's one less disease she can get from him.

Really Pissed off at assholes | December 19, 2005, 6:35pm | #

you know, captain, since Jean Bart deflowered your daughter, you might want to get her a penicilin shot to go along with the HPV one.

or do you have a Plan B?

but then again, since you're afraid of tampons, i guess we can't go to far in pretending that sharp corners dont' exist in your Branson-wanna-be-world.

(if you're a regular who is trolling, "good job". if you're serious. woah. you oughta take up masturbation and maybe fern weaving. keeps your mind off of your sexual frustrations)

rob: you mean like the captain's wife?

Eddy | December 19, 2005, 6:37pm | #

We could just get sperrbezirk signs like they are putting up in Germany.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 6:39pm | #

They say that girls who have poor (or non-existent) relationships with their fathers are more likelyt to become promiscuous. Judging from Holly's attitude toward his daughter, I'd say she's got a better-than-average chance of becoming a slut.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 6:42pm | #

Shem:

If I seem a bit disjointed, it's because I'm trying to respond to many different comments.

My position? I don't have anything against the vaccine per se, it's the idea that it should be forced on young children over the objections of their parents.

I used the data illustrating the relationship between promiscuity, STD transmission, and age of first intercourse to show that while the vaccine may lower the risk of getting HPV, it doesn't remove the risk for other STDs and might in fact create a false sense of security.

If the vaccine doesn't eliminate the need for responsible behavior, why then am I being irresponsible and narrow-minded for refusing to allow my daughters to get the shot at age 13?

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 6:45pm | #

They say that girls who have poor (or non-existent) relationships with their fathers are more likelyt to become promiscuous. Judging from Holly's attitude toward his daughter, I'd say she's got a better-than-average chance of becoming a slut.

Jennifer:

Since you know nothing about me, or my daughters, or our relationship, that has to be about the stupidest thing you've ever said on this forum.

And believe me, there's alot of competition for that honor.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 6:49pm | #

rob:

I've posted data (from a left-wing source, no less) that show prostitutes and their johns are much more likely to get the cancer-causing forms of HPV.

Is that right, or wrong? If wrong, care to provide a source?

Hakluyt | December 19, 2005, 6:56pm | #

The Wine Commonsewer,

I guess I'm behind the times, I never realized that you could get cancer from a virus.

Are you joking?

mediageek,

Its been known for quite some time that viruses can cause cancer.

fyodor,

Hopefully we'll get the FDA approval that will allow that to happen.

It would be nice if we could get rid of the FDA's role in determining what types of drugs we can legally take.

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 6:57pm | #

Captain Holly, what's important is that if your daughter does sleep around, she has a damned good chance of suffering for it.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 6:59pm | #

Stevo:

I'm not saying you can't use it for your daughter. I'm saying I'm not going to use it for my daughter.

I would argue that you don't know if your kids will use dirty needles when they shoot up heroin, either. Using your logic, isn't it wise to keep some works on hand for when your daughter wants to get high?

I mean, the consequences of using a dirty needle are probably even greater than having premarital sex.

Why does everyone assume that premartial sex is both consequence-free and inevitable?

Jennifer | December 19, 2005, 7:03pm | #

I would argue that you don't know if your kids will use dirty needles when they shoot up heroin, either. Using your logic, isn't it wise to keep some works on hand for when your daughter wants to get high?

You saw it here, folks: Captain Holly equates sex with heroin.

Captain Holly | December 19, 2005, 7:19pm | #

Oh, come on, Jennifer. Don't be so dense.

If the argument is "we can't stop kids from having sex, so we should accomodate them", then how is that