An Interesting Study

[Ninjamom]

Actually, Gardasil was approved by the FDA years ago. The big debate has been whether or not the vaccine should be made mandatory.

Then again, had Gardasil been fast-tracked for approval and potentially dangerous side-effects eventually made evident, then the regime in power, in this case 'Smirking Chimp' (hopefully using such a silly moniker for the President enhances my statements, ) would have been a negligent partner in bed with big pharma execs at the expense of the health of innocent girls.

This is the bottom of the issue, regarding the Federal Government - a convenient target to blame for any and all ills.

$600k. $100k......Numbers *could* measure the cost of infertility counseling and treatment, in vitro fertilization, adoption costs......But numbers can't measure heartbreak, stress and strain, depression and anxiety secondary to this.

But please don't lose sight of the fact that condoms are not 100% effective (even for the prevention of pregnancy, let alone STD's). If the success rate of condoms is 95%, that still leaves you a 2/3 chance that in twenty years you will end up paying your $100,000, and still die from the $600,000 killer later on down the road.

I don't think teaching abstinence only is the sole answer, I don't think teaching sex as a health topic and providing barrier contraception is the only answer.

I think we need to do BOTH.

There is JUST NO QUESTION that sex is a health issue and should be taught as such.

There is also NO QUESTION that it is a health issue which involves behaviors which means it has moral and spiritual implications and social repercussions.

Hence, it is INCUMBENT upon us to treat it - AND TEACH IT - as BOTH.

And with this, I am in total agreement.

 

[Empty Hands]

But please don't lose sight of the fact that condoms are not 100% effective (even for the prevention of pregnancy, let alone STD's).

That's a pretty silly argument. If chances of death in a car accident without wearing a seatbelt are 70% and the chances with are 10%, who would argue against using seatbelts because they are not infallible?

The only reason all of this is even an issue is because it involves sex, the great bugaboo of the American mind. With similar choices to be made in less fraught areas of life, there is rarely any argument.

 

[crushing]

If you'll allow me this little tangent, strike it from existence if necessary. . .

Anyone woman that admits Gene Simmons is her baby daddy should be familiar with STDs!!!!

Ok, away from the tongue-in-cheek and back to the serious discussion. . .

 

[CoryKS]

Considering that you don't want to protect children who "don't listen"? Considering that you make a moral distinction between diseases?

Yeah, pretty much.

Dude, it doesn't even have to BE a moral distinction. Despite what Tellner said, I don't even have an "Invisible Friend". You don't need one to recognize that certain behavior has risks. What I'm saying is that if you know there are risks and you choose to do it anyway, you own the risks. That's it. I'm not calling anyone a whore. I'm not making a moral judgement at all.

 

[shesulsa]

Dude, it doesn't even have to BE a moral distinction. Despite what Tellner said, I don't even have an "Invisible Friend". You don't need one to recognize that certain behavior has risks. What I'm saying is that if you know there are risks and you choose to do it anyway, you own the risks. That's it. I'm not calling anyone a whore. I'm not making a moral judgement at all.

Of course not, but what you ARE doing is expecting teenagers to behave with the sensibility, logic and responsibility that adults contain - oh hell, even some adults don't have them!

 

[shesulsa]

If you'll allow me this little tangent, strike it from existence if necessary. . .

Anyone woman that admits Gene Simmons is her baby daddy should be familiar with STDs!!!!

Ok, away from the tongue-in-cheek and back to the serious discussion. . .

I'm going to assume you realize that it's a joke and just politely thank you for the brief break in conversation.

 

[CoryKS]

Of course not, but what you ARE doing is expecting teenagers to behave with the sensibility, logic and responsibility that adults contain - oh hell, even some adults don't have them!

I know, crazy right? There's always just enough of them walking around making smart decisions that it makes you forget about all the other ones.

 

[Flying Crane]

Interesting comparison. What sort of behavior tends to result in polio? Is it behavior that a portion of the community frowns upon? Is it behavior that the victims are being told they can go ahead and engage in, as long as they are "careful"?

The difference is that with STDs: 1) I didn't want you to do that; 2) You did it anyway; 3) You want me to pay to protect you from the effects; 4) I don't think so.

doesn't matter. they are both diseases that are largly avoidable. Using disease as a way to try and scare teenagers who are in an irresponsible period in their lives in an attempt to control their behavior is really a stupid idea.

1) and 2) doesn't matter what you want a teenager to do, they will find a way to do what THEY want to do.

3) no, I wouldn't ask you to pay for it so don't worry.

4) well, if you THINK you can exercise this level of control over your own children, so be it. Don't be surprised when you are disappointed...

 

[CoryKS]

3) no, I wouldn't ask you to pay for it so don't worry.

So, who's supplying those "free" condoms?

 

[Empty Hands]

I'm not making a moral judgement at all.

You made a comparison between polio and STD's, with the inference that polio sufferers didn't do anything and thus deserve help, while STD sufferers did, and thus do not deserve help. That is a moral judgment.

Would that same denial extend to someone who had accidentally cut themselves? Or got in a car accident which was their fault? Somehow I don't think so.

Also, as others have pointed out, you're going on a pretty harsh personal responsibility bent for a bunch of kids. For non-sexual behaviors, most adults have decided that kids don't have the full range of maturity and responsibility and thus deserve help and guidance. Even when they screw up. Even when they don't listen.

It makes it rather hard to believe anything other than the fact that this is all about the sex, not the responsibility.

 

[shesulsa]

I know, crazy right? There's always just enough of them walking around making smart decisions that it makes you forget about all the other ones.

:erg: *looks around* Uh ... exactly *where* do you live? Cuz ... I think I wanna move ....

4) well, if you THINK you can exercise this level of control over your own children, so be it. Don't be surprised when you are disappointed...

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

There are a couple of sentiments in which I entirely agree when it comes to conversation and some that I would dispute.

First of all, I agree that sex education is HIGHLY neglected as a topic in our schools. Students should be given the choice to take a comprehensive, fully informative, and partially practical class on this matter.

Choice is one area that I would like to emphasize, however. No body should be forced to learn something that goes against their religion/morality/ethics. The moment we take steps down that path, then anything goes. Break out the telescreens.

Second of all, condoms should be easier for students to obtain. Making them available for purchase inside of schools makes sense to me. It also solves the problem of forcing people to pay for that which they do not agree...a problem in which I greatly emphasize. I would gladly with hold the $0.50 dollar of every tax dollar I pay because it funds the military industrial complex. I know what some of you are saying, "Bombs vs Condoms?" WTF! Well they're both penis shaped.

Moving on.

Thirdly, while I agree with Tellner's polemic regarding the administrations policy regarding Gardasil, I would like to point out that forcing children to be vaccinated is not a good solution. Especially when the vaccine may not work and may, in fact, be dangerous. Do we really know that HPV causes cancer?

We need to be very careful regarding decisions we make for other people because we think they are best. This is part of the reason we've ended up in the predicament in which we currently find ourselves.

 

[Flying Crane]

So, who's supplying those "free" condoms?

I dunno man, I don't have all the details for all the answers. But I do know that there are products and methods that can negate a huge portion of the risk that can be connected to sexual activity. Teenagers, who as a population are often mentally and emotionally irrational, many of whom WILL have sex whether adults approve or not, ought to benefit from these products and methods. Withholding these products and methods out of a desire to scare teenagers into behavior that you approve of, is already a lost battle.

If you have children of your own, or nephews and nieces, or younger cousins, or friends with children, you decide how much it's worth to you.

 

[newGuy12]

I keep asking myself what *I* would do if I were to live out my misspent youth again, but in this culture that we have today.

Probably be doing as much as I could to spread the STDs for sure. I say break out the condoms for all -- go ahead and contract the manufacturers for another lot shipment.

Treatment of disease is no joke, no matter what kind of behaviour causes it. You want to throw everything at your disposal at the problem.

Again, someone (I have no preference who) should counsel the young people -- "Don't have sex", but also say, "If you disregard my advice, just make sure that you use the condom."

Likewise -- you say, "Do not drink alchohol." But by all means, if you disregard this -- "Do not drive".

Who among us would think -- OH, I will only punch now. No kicking, no kneeing, only punches. No open hand strikes or elbows. Only punches. Such a person would be crazy. Why should we struggle with social ills with a similiar self-imposed limitation? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Nomad]

Interesting comparison. What sort of behavior tends to result in polio? Is it behavior that a portion of the community frowns upon? Is it behavior that the victims are being told they can go ahead and engage in, as long as they are "careful"?

The difference is that with STDs: 1) I didn't want you to do that; 2) You did it anyway; 3) You want me to pay to protect you from the effects; 4) I don't think so.

Okaaaaay.... from this statement, I can assume that you are either 1) a virgin or 2) that you and your spouse were both virgins on your wedding day and will be faithful to each other until you both are dead. And 3) that you either have no children or are 100% certain they will also follow 1) or 2).

Congratulations. Oh, on the offchance that some these conditions are technically not true, then at some point you also were/are/will be spinning the chamber in the STD six-shooter. Good luck!

The cost of the Gardasil vaccine is so much lower than the cost of treating those preventable cases of cervical cancer that it really is a no-brainer for society... and that doesn't even factor in the massive physical and emotional pain of the person and her family in the latter cases.

 

[Ninjamom]

That's a pretty silly argument. If chances of death in a car accident without wearing a seatbelt are 70% and the chances with are 10%, who would argue against using seatbelts because they are not infallible?

The only reason all of this is even an issue is because it involves sex, the great bugaboo of the American mind. With similar choices to be made in less fraught areas of life, there is rarely any argument.

You've set up a straw-man for the argument - no one is arguing "Don't use condoms because they're not 100% effective". My argument is, "Don't assume teens are 100% safe if they use them".

That would be as daft as diving your Piper Cub straight into the dirt since you're protected because, after all, you're wearing your seatbelt.

 

[jetboatdeath]

No thanks I do not want the schools explaining to my two daughters what an excitable form of birth control is.
I think that is my job. If you do not want to explain this to your children don’t have kids…..
And if i don't well i know this is kinda never heard any more but here goes.....
IT'S MY FAULT!!!!
The schools are not a baby sitting service.

 

[Kacey]

No thanks I do not want the schools explaining to my two daughters what an excitable form of birth control is.
I think that is my job. If you do not want to explain this to your children don’t have kids…..
And if i don't well i know this is kinda never heard any more but here goes.....
IT'S MY FAULT!!!!
The schools are not a baby sitting service.

The difference is, you are a responsible parent. I have far too many students whose parents are not responsible parents, as evident by the 4 pregnant 8th graders at my school, and the 12 year-old son of a 25 year-old mother in my class. No one at home is teaching these kids about birth control, or they wouldn't be in the situations they're in - and while I agree that it's not the school's job, who will, if the schools don't?

As far as the condom discussion goes - nothing is 100%, but the 97% success rate of condoms (both as birth control and as a preventative for STDs) is a damn sight better than the success rate of not using a condom... that such usage is also cheaper is simply a nice addition.

 

[MJS]

So, who's supplying those "free" condoms?

I could think of a number of places.

 

[MJS]

Well, it should be no surprise to anyone that a) kids are going to have sex and b) if they're not educated properly, the chance of an STD is going to be higher, compared to if they did have proper education.

If people think that stuff like this doesnt happen, they're kidding themselves. Schools do their part, but its also up to the parents of these kids to educate them. Keeping it away from them, means theres a good chance that out of curiosity, they're going to what to see what the big 'secret' is.

Personally, I'd rather educate my child, and if need be, give them condoms, the pill, etc., so if they should be sexually active, at least they're going to be safe.