12 year old and STD's

Jeanwah

haffajappa wrote:

Sex ed is so important! I guess the problem is not only the embarrassment on the child's part but also the parent's, I assume its awkward for parents to talk to and educate their children on sex. Which is immature, in my opinion, but still happens. Oh and that religion thing too.

Call me crazy, but I don't think vaccines for stds are the answer. Sex education is. Giving out vaccines, in my opinion, promotes ignorance. Like..."Why do I have to learn about stds if I can just rely on a shot?" I can just hear some kid saying such a thing. And that's promoting ignorance. Forget reliance on yet another form of vaccination and get our kids informed, for bob's sake! And pass out those condoms!

JTH

pandora wrote:

I have stated a child should not have this ability to make this choice. They are children!

fair enough.

pandora wrote:

It is a preventive vaccine for a disease.
Not unlike the other vaccines parents get for their children
when they choose to protect them against childhood diseases.

right.

pandora wrote:

You are assuming with the proper education
a parent would not choose to vaccinate their child for future sexual activity
they will enjoy when they are adults or near to be because of morality issues.

No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I said that I feel there are many parents would not even bother to be educated.

pandora wrote:

There is no morality question about this...
it is for a disease they can contract when they are adults.
This vaccine, as many are, is for lifelong diseases, lifelong prevention.

Yes. I completely agree with you. But the truth of the matter is that there's a huge population for whom this is a moral issue simply by virtue of the fact that there is a sexual element here.

pandora wrote:

Educate the parents.

Absolutely. But again, if they're unwilling to participate in the education process, should they be forced into it?

pandora wrote:

The key here is it is a vaccine and not a choice a child should have.
Only an adult should be able to choose once they have made an educated decision
about the risks involved for their child or themselves.

Yes, you've made that quite clear. And as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I do not think this is as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. Are parents who choose not to be educated truly better off making this decision than a 12-year-old who HAS taken the time to educate herself?

pandora

JTH wrote:

Yes, you've made that quite clear. And as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I do not think this is as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. Are parents who choose not to be educated truly better off making this decision than a 12-year-old who HAS taken the time to educate herself?

But you can not assume a child will do this or an adult won't nor base laws that cover everyone on that.

I still beg to differ that sexual activity as an adult is a moral issue.
That a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer in a young adult woman is a moral issue,
that is really off base. This vaccine has nothing to do with condoning sexual
activity ... it is a preventive for adult diseases.
Once educated a parent will understand it is not unlike
other vaccines or like the meningitis vaccine
recommended for my kids at age 14 back in the 90's.

For me still the moral issue is invading the family unit,
taking rights way from parents and giving them to uninformed children
who may not care to understand the risks involved because they do not even
grasp the concept yet.

A person's brain is not fully grown until they are well into their 20's
to even understand full consequence of their actions or lack there of.
They should not decide about vaccines at age twelve!

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

It's really a no-brainer.

Really? A no brainer to allow 12 year olds to make decisions like this without parental consent? That is ridiculous.

The "no brainer" is for the government to get the hell out of the argument.

And by the way, I have a daughter and I would support her getting the vaccine. Of course, I would read up a bit more prior to having her get it, but I'm pretty sure I'd do it. It's not about whether the vaccine is a good thing or not, it's about who should be able to decide that.

The no-brainer is to not create laws that increase children's risk. The government is actually not in the argument at all. This law is specifically saying the government is required to stay OUT of the argument. If the government forbid sexually active people from getting reproductive healthcare unless their parents' consented, THAT would be government interference.

Whether or not you (or anyone else) would allow your daughter to get reproductive healthcare doesn't matter. The point is that many minors will just not seek care rather than having to discuss it with their parents, whether or not their parents would agree.

_

I don't think it's appropriate to center this argument solely on the perspective of the parents who would refuse to allow their teenager to get vaccinated. It leaves out a huge population of parents who want their children to receive the reproductive health care they need and understand that they won't get it if parental involvement is required. What about the rights of those parents??

We must also take into consideration that this vaccine is different from other vaccines in that once you miss your window of opportunity, which is gone by the time you're an adult, you no longer have the option to get vaccinated to prevent you from getting HPV and cervical cancer as an adult. So a parental consent law would not only allow parents to make decisions for their children, they would also be making decisions for the adults their children will become. The old adage that "You can make your own decisions when you turn 18" doesn't apply here. No, in fact they can't make their own decision about this when they turn 18.

JTH

pandora wrote:

I still beg to differ that sexual activity as an adult is a moral issue.
That a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer in a young adult woman is a moral issue,
that is really off base.

You beg to differ? With whom, me? I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people who absolutely view it as a moral issue. Are you saying that I'm wrong about this and that nobody thinks this way?

JTH

_ wrote:

If the government forbid sexually active people from getting reproductive healthcare unless their parents' consented, THAT would be government interference.

Bingo.

pandora

JTH wrote:

pandora wrote:

I still beg to differ that sexual activity as an adult is a moral issue.
That a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer in a young adult woman is a moral issue,
that is really off base.

You beg to differ? With whom, me? I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people who absolutely view it as a moral issue. Are you saying that I'm wrong about this and that nobody thinks this way?

I think you said there was a huge factor of people who will view it as a moral issue
because it is based in sexuality....yes? I did not say no one would view it this way but
Yes I am disagreeing with that. It is a preventive adult disease vaccine not birth control etc.
and with education this will be understood.

I think there will be a huge factor of people though who see the real moral issue
to be the government passing laws that interfere with the family unit
and give rights to uniformed twelve year olds when they are mere children.

And at the same time give the right to the government to vaccinate our children
without our permission. That is ridiculous prospect.

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

I don't think it's appropriate to center this argument solely on the perspective of the parents who would refuse to allow their teenager to get vaccinated. It leaves out a huge population of parents who want their children to receive the reproductive health care they need and understand that they won't get it if parental involvement is required. What about the rights of those parents??

We must also take into consideration that this vaccine is different from other vaccines in that once you miss your window of opportunity, which is gone by the time you're an adult, you no longer have the option to get vaccinated to prevent you from getting HPV and cervical cancer as an adult. So a parental consent law would not only allow parents to make decisions for their children, they would also be making decisions for the adults their children will become. The old adage that "You can make your own decisions when you turn 18" doesn't apply here. No, in fact they can't make their own decision about this when they turn 18.

Every decision a parent makes is making a decision for the adults their children will become.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

I don't think it's appropriate to center this argument solely on the perspective of the parents who would refuse to allow their teenager to get vaccinated. It leaves out a huge population of parents who want their children to receive the reproductive health care they need and understand that they won't get it if parental involvement is required. What about the rights of those parents??

We must also take into consideration that this vaccine is different from other vaccines in that once you miss your window of opportunity, which is gone by the time you're an adult, you no longer have the option to get vaccinated to prevent you from getting HPV and cervical cancer as an adult. So a parental consent law would not only allow parents to make decisions for their children, they would also be making decisions for the adults their children will become. The old adage that "You can make your own decisions when you turn 18" doesn't apply here. No, in fact they can't make their own decision about this when they turn 18.

Every decision a parent makes is making a decision for the adults their children will become.

You know this is different. The consequences - which affect the adult, not the child - are irreversible. That is not the same as other decisions to prevent someone from receiving vaccinations.

VINNY GOOMBA

How does a 12 year old girl get one of these vaccines to begin with? Are these offered for free in Middle School?

_

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

How does a 12 year old girl get one of these vaccines to begin with? Are these offered for free in Middle School?

It will practically never happen. Nobody's going around offering HPV vaccines to kids like candy. At this point, they would more than likely have to nagivate the healthcare system, seek out the vaccine, find transportation to the clinic, etc. If they qualify financially (and I'm not sure how they'll prove they do without a parent), they can get it for free through the Vaccines for Children program. I think Title X and Medicaid cover it as well.

Chip McFlennigan

I just hope this makes more teenage girls wanna get pregnant. Having a baby is a beautiful miracle and, wait, what's this you say? You don't have any money?

Worry not! The government is here to fund you as you pop out as many babies as you want! It's free money!