Comments

1
Right on.
2
Right up there with abortions causing breast cancer and masturbation causing hairy palms.

Actually, IF ONLY this were as innocuous as hairy palms; this is life or death for some women.
3
Teapartiers believe that if "whores" must die to promote their message, so be it! They of course neglect to mention how gran'ma died of "female concerns" and their mother had a hysterectomy.

Granted, I don't hate the Huffington Post any less for their regressive agenda, simply because HuffPo is believed to be left-leaning. They (and Oprah, for that matter) have their hands bloody just as much.
4
Face it, they're just old whiny people who believe Martians live next door.
5
She'd be more pro-vaccine if she or her husband were a board director or former chair, or a sizable shareholder of a pharmaceutical company that made $$$$ from vaccines. The idea in US politics is to get into some sort of high-ranking office and then promote some crisis that the company you once controlled and still have lots of shares in can profit by.
6
Actually, they don't want women to die, they just want women beaten into submission. That way they can churn out more "arrows for god's army."
7
Bottom line is that the GOP believes that poor people should not have sex or be allowed to live. Period. If they don't breed, their kids can't grow up to vote democratic. Any solution that allows poor people to die, the GOP are all over it.
8
As usual, Urgutha nails it. This isn't about wanting women to die, but about wanting women to not have sex outside of marriage.
9
Look, if you're dumb enough to perform the low paying jobs that America needs filled to function, you don't deserve to have protected sex for fun. You should be focusing the rest of your 11 hour work day on having babies.
10
No, they hate the HPV vaccine because they don't want women to have sex unless it's their husband. They hate women's sexuality.
11
Again: This is not just about cervical cancer!!!!

The HPV vaccine will help prevent oral and laryngeal cancers (most of which are HPV related). The HPV vaccine protects against 6,11, 16 and 18, but studies have shown that there is some cross protection against other HPV types.

So a vaccine that can protect against cervical cancer, oral/laryngeal cancer, oh - I forgot - anal cancer (sorry Farrah), and genital warts. Versus morons who cite bad literature and no scientifically proven severe adverse effects.

It seems so clear. This protects both men and women and both should be vaccinated!

(Also, keep in mind that cervical cancer is relatively uncommon these days with regular pap screening. But having parts of your cervix lopped off for precancer lesion or premature birth because of cervical incompetence, etc is not exactly pleasant.)
12
I'm disinclined to agree to the idea that religious conservatives love HPV or that they want their family members to die. What they love is compliance, money, and power. And fearful people tend, not all of them, to be more compliant. Compliant people can be told what to do, they make excellent sheep.

Are they sacrificing the health of individuals, not just girls as HPV can cause cancer (cervical, anal, throat) and cares nothing for its hosts gender, upon the alter of their greed? Yes. But I don't think it is because they love a virus, or wish for their own loved one to die. No, they are counting on odds that their loved ones will be compliant to the abstinence message and so will their future mate, because they've raised them to follow their moral values. It is a gamble. A foolish one in my opinion.

Anyway, you have some power in this. Make sure your beautiful boy is fully immunized, all three shots, Dan. And, I assure you that both of ours have their IQ well intact, despite Bachmann's fears.
13
Oncogenic (cancer causing) HPV subtypes cause anal, penile, oropharyngeal, and laryngeal cancer in men, women, straight and gay! Vaccinate the boys too! Men pass the virus on to women and men can get the virus from women!
14
Um ... wow, and you accuse the Republicans of spinning ... just ... wow. I remember when the Democrat supporters were actually better than the Republican ones, at least better than the Republican politicians, now I seriously see no difference.

The age of Us Versus Them goes deeper into depravity.
15
@6 is right. Conservatives don't want all women to die, just the "slutty" ones. They either don't know or don't care that women are just as at-risk if their husbands sleep around.

One of my friends used to provide AIDS-counseling services for immigrant women. Many of them were convinced that they couldn't have HIV because they had never had sex with anyone other than their husbands. As a multilingual, my friend had the heart-breaking task of letting them know the likely scenario...
16
Oh, just wait until health officials start recommending that boys be vaccinated against it too to prevent anal cancer... Because the only thing they hate more than women is teh gays.

But, if they find out it prevents penile cancer- the entire controversy will vanish. watch.
17
I really really really wish @6 wasn't right.

But Urgutha is, kind of.
18
@6/8: Their desires lead to suffering AND submission. HPV affects all their family and relatives.
19
@15: " Conservatives don't want all women to die, just the "slutty" ones."

Yeah, but their mothers/sisters/grandmothers are thus "sluts", no matter how few men they may have slept with.
20
@11: "The HPV vaccine will help prevent oral and laryngeal cancers "

Probably also anal and penile, but men shouldn't be "whoremongers", obviously.
21
They've found HPV under boy's fingernails- so heavy petting (so retro!) is dangerous too- and not just for girls. This vaccine needs to be given to both boys and girls to protect them. The bottom line is the old double standard- girls should be punished for having sex outside of marriage and boys should have all the sex they want without getting caught.
22
So, you're saying you're a Perry supporter?
23
Your tinfoil hat is so tight it's giving ME a headache.
24
@14 "now I seriously see no difference."

I recommend you start by watching some old Sesame Street reruns, "One of these things is not like the others..." Once you've learned the basics, try finding superficial differences between the parties and their representatives. Even you may eventually be able to see underlying philosophical and policy differences that have powerful and far reaching consequences, especially as the play out in the large legislative bodies in out representative Federal government.
25
@21: They've also found evidence of anogenital HPV in nuns and children with no history of sexuality and molestation.
26
Actually, HPV does effect males as badly as females, just not as frequently. Both penile and anal cancer is possible in males, anal and cervical for females. Warts though are the most common complication however most people who get it fight it off with no problems. The vaccine is to decrease the chances of complications, and is still not a sure thing just better than nothing. Gardisal is recommended for both male and female to reduce the risk of warts, and anal cancer. Cervarix is for cervical cancer, but there is nothing for penile cancer yet, which is why there is no push for males to get the vaccine.

Note also, cervical and penile cancer are not death sentences if diagnosed early enough, anal isn't if caught earlier. However, penile cancer has the lowest risk of death (that I just know from personal research) even if it has progressed, so long as it does not migrate all they have to do is remove the member.

Gotta love the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.h…

So again, the Democrat supporters have fallen to the level of Republicans, congratulations, the last bit of faith I had in Dems has been utterly and completely destroyed. I now regard you as the same as right wing religious nuts .... like my mother, how wonderful for you, though I know you don't care about one person, but if you want to know why more people are becoming disillusioned, this is why. Spins like this, lowest form of political statement, lie or exaggerate your opposition's views ....
27
@26: "So again, the Democrat supporters have fallen to the level of Republicans, congratulations, the last bit of faith I had in Dems has been utterly and completely destroyed. I now regard you as the same as right wing religious nuts"

What, posted here would ever give you license to say anything this stupid?

"Spins like this, lowest form of political statement, lie or exaggerate your opposition's views ...."

Plenty of Republicans hold anti-science views as a matter of political position. Plenty of "Democrats" do as well (the aforementioned HuffPo technically counts, even though Arianna Huffington is nothing more than a longtime Republican that wanted to be invited to the right parties.)

The "only" difference? Mainstream Dems think those are crazy, whereas mainstream Republicans distrust modern science that isn't endorsed by the GOP.
28
I know I can always count on Catalina Vel-Duray and Kim in Portland to provide the most gracious and level-headed comments on Slog. Two lovely ladies.
29
@26, Wow, one blog post completely destroyed your faith in Democrats? This must be your first day on the internet.
30
@14: Please point out the last time the Democrats fielded candidates whose statements flew in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Statements like

1. Evolution did not happen.

2. Climate change is a myth.

3. Vaccines cause mental retardation.
31
What about vertical transmission? A mother can transmit HPV to her child in the womb. So what about protecting the unborn?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/4836…
32
@29: Also, they must not have ever paid attention to politics before this very day.
33
Spindles and sgt doom must be caught in traffic. I am sure they will make up for their absence in due time.
34
You know, I'd really like for these people to meet a woman whose medical appointment I interpreted once. She had one sexual partner her whole life - her SOB husband who'd fucked around on her and bailed after she had the three kids - and that fuckhead had given her HPV. Coming from a culture where women don't get regular check-ups, it advanced to cervical cancer and she only had another year or two left. She had three kids under 11, no relatives in this country who could look after them, and was absolutely driven mad by wondering what was going to happen to them when she died.

I'd like just one of these cynical motherfuckers to have looked in her eyes and seen the terror there.
35
@3: Word. My great-grandma died ca. 1920 from cervical cancer, ~10 years after divorcing my great-grandpa, who must have been quite a player, as the Census shows him marrying a new 20-year-old every 10 years.

Genealogy+death certificates = very enlightening family history.
36
My sister had half her cervix out at age 25. Both of my daughters are getting vaccinated as soon as it is reccomended.
37
Slutty slutty nuns.

... Wait, I thought this wasn't a Catholic nation?
38
of course the religious rights distrust of science and their dogmatic animosity towards women makes for bad social policy;
but if you add to that a political agenda wrapped in warped notions of "liberty" things often quickly get much worse... at the very least in terms of discourse, and sometimes even much worse than that.
39
Pro-life=Death
40
@34: "I'd like just one of these cynical motherfuckers to have looked in her eyes and seen the terror there."

You're talking about a group of people who still adjust their morality in terms of predestination.

People get HPV because they made poor choices. People are poor because they are lazy. I am Privileged because I am a "good" and moral person. Predestination makes it all the easier to harden their hearts to the effects of STIs, no matter how INCREDIBLY COMMON they are.

If HPV presented more often on males, and had such (commonly) fatal consequences, the GOP would not have so much of an issue with vaccinations. They've never protested any of the treatments that affect white, heterosexual men as much as women, there was no conservative religious outcry against treating Syphilis or Gonorrhea.
41
@32 and 29 ... I may play a pessimist, but I really am an optimist at heart. I was hoping it was some phase they'd grow out of once Bush was a distant memory ... why? Because I use to love Democrat's take on issues .... now, the ever decreasing logic of the Dem politicians and the increasing and utter hatred spewed by their supporters, then top it off with spins like this "she wishes they'd die" .... "I'm started to become what I play on TV". >.<

To the rest:
Sorry, but the Republican candidates hurt themselves enough with what they say, and actually reporting on that without bias would help the Democrats, but to completely spin it with lies about "he said" and "she said" when they didn't actually say that but are just deluded and uneducated, that does NOT make you or your party look like one that should be in charge anymore, or ever again. Yes, allowing religious belief to influence one's logic is stupid, but to condemn them for having a belief at all is really poor form. Disregarding science it stupid to, but that's all you should need to see it's a bad idea, not creating a lie like this. Seriously, the Us Versus Them in the US has got to stop, it was cute back when Obama was first elected but now it's way out of hand. The Democrat politicians promised they'd seek non-partisan solutions at first, then they lowered themselves to bi-partisan, now it's just partisan .... and the supporters are even worse. Ironically the Republicans use to spin worse than the Democrats, but now they're tame when compared to shit like this. THIS is more sickening than believing a conspiracy theory like Bachmman does, THIS is more sickening than bashing gays, THIS is more sickening and heartbreaking than anything the Republicans have said since Obama got elected, and that's VERY low, so very low I think it passed the core of Earth itself.

Look at you all, instead of seeking to find better ways to educate people like we use to, you are jumping on lynch mob bandwagons. Where are your torches? Did you remember your pitchforks to? I'm not perfect, I am far from perfect, but I expected better than this from the people I use to agree with and support because they had better ideas and wanted to work as a nation instead of a party. Last, this is NOT what the founding fathers wanted. Cartman said it best, "You need each other, the gun toting rednecks to keep America from looking weak, and the bleeding heart hippies to help America look innocent" (paraphrased), so suck it up and learn to work together again.

Note: I gave a similar lecture to some Republican supporters, sadly they actually took it to heart and I doubt you will.
42
Benign neglect isn't murder, but it's a heartlessness under the guise of kindness, KittenKoder.

Should we pretend spreading disinformation is doing women a favor?

Should we take (presumably Liberal) monsters like Jenny McCarthy at face value when they're "helping parents make the right decisions"?
43
"The Democrat politicians promised they'd seek non-partisan solutions at first, then they lowered themselves to bi-partisan, now it's just partisan"

Spoken like a true faux-independent. The Democrats started off Centrist, and have slid further and further right-wing. Nothing is good enough.

44
" THIS is more sickening than believing a conspiracy theory like Bachmman does, THIS is more sickening than bashing gays, THIS is more sickening and heartbreaking than anything the Republicans have said since Obama got elected, and that's VERY low, so very low I think it passed the core of Earth itself."

Yes, calling out harmful actions is worse than the disgusting actions themselves. How dare anyone step up and protect science, medicine, and womens' health against deception. How dare anyone take an adversarial tone! How dare anyone call out blatant lies when spoken!

I don't give a shit if you get the vapors from our language, KittenKoder. The political discourse is terrible, but it's your fault for playing false equivalency and unquestioningly toeing the Republican narrative, not ours.
45
@41: I see you didn't answer my question @30. Here's why the question is relevant: because the GOP has started electing politicians who actually believe the crazy shit from the right, or are at least willing to pretend they believe it. As the debt ceiling fiasco showed, you can't negotiate with crazy people-- though fortunately there were enough sane GOP politicians to get the deal through. That won't last.

If the GOP were electing politicans who negotiated using reason, then your point about compromise would be well taken. But they're not: they're electing crazies for whom "conservatism" is a form of religious zealotry. And until that changes, there really isn't any point to engaging with them.

Do you calmly discuss issues with a soapbox preacher so that he sees the error of his ways?
46
@11 This is all true, but the problem is that low-income women don't get pap-smears. Other causes of cervical cancer include poor diet, early age at first full-term pregnancy, and lots of full-term pregnancies. So... poverty. Yet another reason why Bachmann doesn't want to see the HPV vaccine made more accessible.
47
@46: "Other causes of cervical cancer include poor diet, early age at first full-term pregnancy, and lots of full-term pregnancies."

Er, those are correlated and may trigger, but do not necessarily CAUSE it.
48
Republicans are against a cure for cancer. That is crazy.
49
and remember, the Republican narrative is so dangerous precisely because it intends to lead us into proven deadly Republican policies.
50
"but it's your fault for playing false equivalency and unquestioningly toeing the Republican narrative, not ours. " That has got the be the most telling comment of Democrat supporters. This is what it says: It's your fault for not giving us your vote.

Do you REALLY want to stoop that low? I don't tow Republican narrative, I didn't even use to pay attention until I noticed the spins. An independent isn't partisan, I choose issues not parties, simply by that logic I am considered an independent by many, note, not the same as the Independent party which are really the faux-independents. I believe the new term they use for my non-partisan look is "swing voter" ... but really that's just another name for non-partisan. Just because you can't handle someone holding up a mirror to your words, doesn't mean we are Republican, there are more people like me who are simply choosing the lesser of two evils this time, and well, I don't like having to do that, I'm guessing a lot of people probably don't like being in that position either. If you can't be honest about what your opponents actually say or do, how can someone trust you to be honest about what you want done? Ayn, if you want people to respect the Democrats more, they should start being Democrats again at least. "Religious Conservatives Hate the HPV Vaccine Because They Want Women to Die " Is not what any of them have said, or even implied, the only thing they have said is conspiracy nuttery on it, a conspiracy nuttery that's becoming more common these days, but it wasn't wishing people dead. Can't you at least admit that? I admit when I'm wrong, can't you? Again, I know I'm not perfect, but if someone as imperfect as me can admit to being wrong (see the Earthlike planet comment or the cyclist on the Ave comments for proof on here) surely someone with your creds could.
51
@41, We have different definitions of sickening, it would seem. A major candidate for the presidency going on national television and delivering second-hand information from a random stranger as though it’s as good as peer-reviewed science, demonstrating both her profound ignorance and contempt for science all at once = sickening, disturbing, even terrifying when I consider she has a theoretical chance at running the country. A sex advice columnist making hyperbolic statements about said politician’s beliefs, on the other hand, doesn’t even chart on the scale.
52
@50: "Do you REALLY want to stoop that low? "

You're crying about tone, not substance.

"Republicans don't care if women die"
versus
"Republicans want women to die"
versus
"Republicans would rather women die than be 'sluts' "
versus any number of iterations that state the same thing.

All that matters is that women are dying and Republicans passively-to-actively encourage this to continue, as long as it justifies their "moral code".

You're what is known as a "tone troll" oh so concerned about civility! Oh so unconcerned with the horrors of actual GOP policy. God help us if someone gets angry at lies and mistruths. Your shock and horror that someone would get angry and dare use strong words is childlike.

Even if we were to use less strong language, it would not reduce the crass politics that encourage deaths to occur. It's your passive complicity that allows it to continue.
53
@51 You mean like how Al Gore did? Yep, I do see that as sickening to, but at least get the story right and don't adlib with complete fabrications, as I said, that's stooping to their level, do you really want to be the same as those you condemn?
54
"if someone as imperfect as me can admit to being wrong (see the Earthlike planet comment or the cyclist on the Ave comments for proof on here) surely someone with your creds could."

I lose my temper and *sound* like a jerk when things affect me, that does not make me somehow "worse" than someone who actively lies and places people in danger to gain popular support.
55
"@51 You mean like how Al Gore did? "

You're not helping your "i'm an independent" cred when you regurgitating GOP climate-denial lies. Stick to koding, stop pretending to understand hard science.

Check out

http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

If you're actually concerned with reality and not perpetuating a lie.
56
@53 Do you have no sense of scale whatsoever? Do you really see no distinction between a politician and a private citizen with a soapbox?

Might I suggest you spend less energy fretting over a supporter's tone and a little more looking into what the politicians themselves are saying? Or do you base your vote entirely on whose supporters say the least divisive things?

Also: Al Gore? WTF are you talking about?
57
Ayn, all of those statements ARE different, they mean different things, pollsters use tricks like that as well, so do psychics .... it's not honest, it's a lie, and even worse not one of those is true. As I have said before, it's more effective to show the truth. "Harsh" language is subjective as well, I have the "mouth of a sailor" according to many, I use harsh language when I'm not angry. As for trolling, no, I'm not trying to stir up anything, I'm trying to do the opposite, prevent a lynch mod mentality. I may not get everyone to see the problem but some will ... as I like to remind people, the wars of the strongest impact in history were won with whispers. Hurting yourself just to hurt the opposition, is that really a good tactic? You see, in this particular instance, she didn't lie or even say anything about wanting people to die, she honestly believes in her conspiracy theory. But what do Republican supporters see? They see you spin it into a lie, only strengthening her base. If you want to sway supporters of a particular group, show them how insane that group is. Here is a perfect opportunity completely wasted. Do you realize how much they hate when their politicians are actually conspiracy theorists? I have won a lot of debates against Republican supporters simply by pointing out a true conspiracy theory held by one of their politicians. It works, not always but it opens their eyes a little, eventually their eyes open wide enough and they may see the truth in more things. Articles are just debates of a different type, but they are debates, and can be used to help or hurt causes and political groups. This time, this one article (a few others but as well but I'm focusing here) is hurtful to one side while helpful to the other. Hell, I can't find an article I can use to defend Democrats anywhere lately, I had to actually give up debating with the Republicans altogether, even they're bored. The message board is dead now, mostly just wise cracks and jokes, no debating, not even an argument, because those on the Dem's side have given up completely and I can't play both sides at all either. I haven't had a decent debate against anyone for so long I'm getting agitated, I can't defend the Republicans, most of what they say is nuts, but I can't defend the Democrats either now. All I'm asking is for something useful for a change, like fair and balanced reporting would be nice, or at least honesty so they can't use the article itself as firepower. Yes, I'm taking the egotistical and narcissistic angle on this, but it's deeper than that, as I pointed out already, but since you aren't willing to listen to logic or reasoning, at least listen to a heartfelt plea for something honest.
58
@40: Wow. I'd never even considered the importance of predestination and the way it shades these people's world views. So then that lady's kids were predestined to be orphans and there's no need to worry about their wellbeing, because god will provide?

Wow. Just wow.
60
Ayn, the Al Gore thing wasn't proven by the Republicans, it was actually a Democrat who first pointed it out, and then some media outlets as well. Al Gore did jump the gun massively using unproven science and such to make a false case to the government. Also, there have been liberals opposing vaccines with the same exact conspiracy theories as well, watch Penn and Teller's Vaccine episode of Bullshit for several. ;) No, they are not my only source for information, just it's easier to remember which show of theirs has what compared to searching through thousands of links for the same information. The Al Gore thing ... well ... that's just too easy to see, read the report he submitted himself, the very first one.
61
@59 I suck at my native tongue, I admit it, public school failed me and I have no reason to care about perfecting it.
62
Shit; people being allowed to live AND have sex without consequences? Surely this level of "people being non-miserable" must be stopped!
63
http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featur…
http://www.science20.com/science_20/why_…

I mean, is asking for a little objectiveness from those who cry when others are not objective really that much to ask for?
64
@60: You seriously have no idea what you're talking about regarding climate change. It's not helping your credibility here.

Regarding vaccines, read my earlier posts. Stop skimming them.

You're all emotion, no research. Start paying attention and turn off Fox and maybe you'll have a clue what's going on around you.
65
it's like some sort of republican party meme generator just spit out a let's be all "centrist" bot, one with a "not be to blatant and obvious" flaw in it the clone subroutine, perhaps it is just a glitch and will be fixed in beta.
66
@61: You have no reason to make yourself intelligible? That's tantamount to admitting that you don't want us to listen to you.
67
@63: Pointing to pseudo-science sites and lawsuit allegations does not help your cause. The medical community-- you know, people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about-- is near-unanimous in its conclusions regarding the lack of causal link between vaccines and autism or retardation.

Truthfully, you're exactly like the religious zealots I described in @45: someone who passionately believes that "civility solves everything" and "both parties are to blame," and thus completely disregards any evidence that does not support your beliefs.

And so I will now take my own advice and leave you to your soapbox.
68
@65: "the truth lies somewhere in the middle, let us be fair and balanced, ale gore is fat, blah blah blah (marginalized) liberals believe the same things, liberals never tried to listen and work with republicans!"

Yep, KittenKoder is a homeschooled mainstream-media narrative generator alright.
69
@67 Way to not keep up, I was showing that the "other" side has done the same thing you are all so angry about "them" doing. Keep up.
70
@61: I don't think it was public school that failed you.
71
@68 Did I ever once say that liberals never tried to work with Republicans, hell, did I even mention liberals in here anywhere until just now?
72
@69: Your tu quoque fallacy is showing.
73
@69: can you read? That's not the mainstream left and this was ALREADY MENTIONED and explained as harmful. I honestly believe that HufPo and Jenny McCarthy would allow people to die for their own egos.
74
I love it, when someone comes in with an alternate view that isn't even actual opposition, you are all just attacking, most are not even reading anything that's being said, and some are just looking for excuses, I'm starting to think this spin wasn't even on purpose, that Democrat supporters are really becoming as ignorant as Republican politicians. Seriously, this looks like a bunch of Republicans jumping on the gay kid now. So glad I don't commit to one side or the other so vehemently, I'd hate to have to surrender my brain for a D or R on my card ... I really would, it's not a good trade off.

Yep, that last part was trolling, but it's truth to and no worse than what is being said toward me.
75
You're uninformed and willfully ignorant. it doesn't matter what partisan allegiances you hold, or your claimed impartiality. You're not disliked because you "think different", you're disliked because you're full of misinformation and logical fallacies.
76
Not all Conservatives oppose such a position: http://floppingaces.net/2011/09/14/conse…
77
the flaw of centrism today is that, out of fear, it so often willingly, obstinately still holds that one foot and at least half of its ideas in the messed up past.
78
@76 - I don't think the problem is that all conservatives oppose the HPV vaccine, rather that anyone would oppose the HPV vaccine, especially on the grounds that it might increase promiscuity.
79
Why are you guys arguing with the anti-vax Libertard?
80
If we all get the vaccine and they don't that could work out okay. They don't believe in evolution so I don't think they will notice until it is too late.
81
I wish they would just say, "We believe that the fear of STDs is good because it keeps people from having more sex than they otherwise would." Then some of the stink of hypocrisy would go away.

Saving oneself for an emotionally meaningful relationship is a good thing, but the right reasons to do that are all internal ones, self-discipline and focus. The vaccine wouldn't do a darn thing to those.
82
Can you even imagine how much they would hate an HIV vaccine if it were to ever exist?
83
@kim in portalnd, I think you're right on. Nobody is "evil" in the sense that we want "evil" to prevail; it's just that fundamentalist religious conservatives have convinced themselves that non-abstinence/monogramy driven sexuality is "wrong" and "bad" and "unhealthy" and "a threat" -- so much so that they're willing to put up with potential cancer deaths in order to fight against something that they see as increasing the power of the sexual "threat."

You mention compliance, and it's a big part of it: we want everybody to agree with OUR viewpoint. (No matter how much America is supposedly based on the idea that other viewpoints are OK, there's no shortage of people who think it's in the public interest to make all viewpoints othe than theirs disappear...). But there's also a big, urgent feeling that our viewpoint is RIGHT, that people are being "really harmed" by the "pseudo-liberal-gay-anarchist agenda" and all this animal sexuality out there, and that this has to stop or else we're doomed. And that it's OK to put up with a few HPV-related deaths if this helps us save everybody from a fate worse than death.

How sad it is when someone closes their hearts to the (different) happiness of others, and their brains to the possibility there might be truth elsewhere than in their own favorite beliefs! ...
84
@KittenKoder, it pains me to say so, but I think there's a lot of truth in what you say.

Dan is a good guy. He really is -- not only because of the IGB project, or because of the obvious concern he shows in so many of his advice posts. But he's decided to have a husband and form a family, to raise a kid, and he's taking all of that damn seriously and responsibly -- more so than many a person I see in my daily life. He is a good guy.

And yet, you're right... all this post says is "I'm angry at them, so I'm going to say the worst, most offensive, most exaggerated things I can think of about their motivations -- they want women to DIE!! because they HATE women!! -- as if they were plainly obvious, as if reality really were like that."

It is sad. But frankly -- considering the climate; considering how so many people, and different kinds of people, are stooping that low; considering the amount of utterly exaggerated garbage we see being thrown around; how difficult must be it to keep your cool? To not get angry, to not want to hurl shit around since there's so much shit in the air already (and some of it hurts us directly)...

I mean, aren't you yourself doing something like this when you say "Democrats and Democrat supporters are like this or like that"... as if EVERY SINGLE ONE shared Dan's opinions to the last iota? Granted, it's not much of a spin, but it is one.

I guess people -- even good people -- are getting angry in this climate. And angry people say angry things, not right things. It's the world we're living in, apparently.
85
Those of you who are saying that they don't want women to die, but rather want them to abstain, are correct to a point. However, one way to drive home the importance of abstinence and only abstinence is to point to hundreds of women who have died of cervical cancer and say "If only they had practiced abstinence they would still be alive." When women aren't dying from HPA turned cervical cancer then they can't use HPV as a boogeyman to scare women out of sex.
86
When women aren't dying from HPA turned cervical cancer then they can't use HPV as a boogeyman to scare women out of sex.


Point well taken. Indeed, those who would like to keep STIs around because they're god's way of telling us to keep it in our pants should also not be vaccinated or even take medicine against other infections that can certainly be construed as "god's will" too; or else you look inconsistent ("god's will is to be obeyed in some cases but not others", etc.).
87
Dan I hate to break it to you but some things are all about personal freedom and choice and not about conservatives. I'm a libertarian myself who votes Democratic about 70% of the time. I dislike Bachmann very much but i also dislike the government being able to dictate what i put into my body or my (imaginary) childs for that matter. I normally agree with you, but on this, i think you're dead wrong. The HPV vaccine is most likely perfectly harmless and provides protection from disease that is avoidable. But these are personal choices we must all make and having the government dictate this decision for you is a violation of your body not just your rights.
88
Good Post, DS!!

The party of life indeed.
89
@87, you make a good argument. But we have a long-standing history of the government being able to tell us what to do with our bodies when it affects other people. Thus, nobody tells you that you can't smoke cigarettes, just where you can't smoke. Nobody says "don't drink alcohol," just "don't drink and drive." And an unvaccinated person is clearly spreading a communicable disease to other, unsuspecting individuals. There's certainly a public health aspect to this you can't ignore.
90
Anyone who thinks there isn't any conservative glee over casualties from HPV might recall the conservative reaction to deaths from AIDS in the 1980s. Fundamentalist preachers like Jimmy Swaggart got applause from their congregations just by mentioning it, and Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan actually laughed about it during a press conference.

In the case of women, the Right regards women as necessary -- after all, if women aren't having babies, where are we going to get more people to work at borderline-subsistence wages and where are we going to get more soldiers to "defend our freedom" (a/k/a defend the profits of military contractors)? However, I have no doubt at all that they're about as concerned over women dying from HPV as they are over women dying from botched illegal abortions. It may not be what they actually want, but nevertheless it's useful for them.
91
@ 87, in case @ 89 wasn't clear, you have no right to spread communicable diseases and endanger the health of others.

@ 89, you're up early (5:10 mountain time...)
92
Anyone who thinks there isn't any conservative glee over casualties from HPV might recall the conservative reaction to deaths from AIDS in the 1980s. Fundamentalist preachers like Jimmy Swaggart got applause from their congregations just by mentioning it, and Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan actually laughed about it during a press conference.

In the case of women, the Right regards women as necessary -- after all, if women aren't having babies, where are we going to get more people to work at borderline-subsistence wages and where are we going to get more soldiers to "defend our freedom" (a/k/a defend the profits of military contractors)? However, I have no doubt at all that they're about as concerned over women dying from HPV as they are over women dying from botched illegal abortions. It may not be what they actually want, but nevertheless it's useful for them.
93
83

Actually, the CDC points out that
non-abstinence/non-monogramy are unhealthy.....
94
our Danny is one bitter deluded little boy......
95
wow - I wish I lived out there with you guys. Here in Baltimore this story got a shrug and a "there they go again" roll of the eyes. It's nice to see actual public discourse. Our papers try to run comment boards, but the crazies (mostly from the far far suburbs) post such vitriolic blather that there is no longer any conversation taking place.

Kudos to all of you! Don't fuck it up sniping at each other
97
Matt, it's not all that unusual for me to be up at that hour; it is pretty unusual for me to be fucking around on Slog at that time, though.
98
I'm sorry but i don't believe HPV is a "public health hazard" in the sense that other communicable diseases are. It's a sexually transmitted disease. In order to be infected one must first choose to have sex with an infected partner. This choice would be made in spite of the risks of other sexually transmitted disease like HIV, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and so on. It's not the same as being vaccinated to prevent the spread of measles, mumps, rubella, etc. That's why it should remain as much a choice as the choice to engage in sex. As i've said i don't believe the vaccine is harmful as some do but i don't believe it's necessary to mandate the vaccine. It like many decisions should be between a patient and their doctor.
99
@96 I think you've taken my position to an extreme i never suggested there weren't reasons to vaccinate. I don't see HPV as comparable to Small Pox because of the mechanism of spreading the disease. And I do feel it is intrusive on a persons body to force any vaccine the government deems acceptable and safe. I wouldn't even recommend a young girl not get the vaccine, but i don't agree the government has the rightful authority to force it. Yes the government does plenty of things that intrude on our rights but it doesn't make it correct to add one more.
100
@ MyChalkLine

You really should do some reading on HPV. Then you would know that both low- and high-risk types of HPV often stay undetected for month, even years after the initial infection took place because the virus tends to stay inactive for that long. This makes HPV much more dangerous than other virus-induced illnesses because an infected person could spread the virus for a long, long time before even suspecting that he or she isn´t healthy.
101
I do not doubt the seriousness of the disease @100. I agree that young women should get vaccinated against the disease for their own good. I also recommend people use condoms (because HPV isn't the only threat). But i don't believe i have the right to make the choices for others that i believe are best for them. It all comes down to the threat they pose to society and by that i mean will they pose a threat from casual contact. If i'm walking down the street (or riding an elevator) with someone who has Small Pox then they are putting me and everyone else in danger. The same cannot be said of someone who has HPV. And once again I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm anti-mandate (without the specific threat i mentioned above).

    Please wait...

    and remember to be decent to everyone
    all of the time.

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.