biospheres?

[pianistimo]

www.sierratimes.com/05/02/24/24_210_137_23_31365.htm

[pianistimo]

if usa isn't getting wierd enough - look at this:

www.senate.michigan.gov/hammerstrom/news/september2006/92006.pdf

what happened to our rights.  why would this be mandatory for 6th grade girls?  what happened to abstinence.

why can we not vote on this as citizens.  our voting powers are becoming too limited to non important topics.  we did not even vote on the war.

[prometheus]

I don't understand.

The first article is written by someone who does not know what the UN is. Blaming Kofi Annan for the UN's failure in Sudan...

Annan doesn't have power. The only thing he tries to do is to bring the countries of the world together and have them solve the Sudan problem. But countries are unwilling. Iraq and Afghanistan are more important. US, China, Russia, etc they are disinterested. They have other interests in Sudan, etc.

Pronk was kicked out and received no support from the members of the UN. Therefore Kofi Annan couldn't do anything for him or for peace in Sudan.

The irony is that those that weakened the UN in the case of Iraq also caused a weak UN unable to organise peace, or protect the people, in Sudan, which they again critizise.

If the world's superpower can just ignore the UN then why can't Sudan? Those that always attack the UN because it sometimes opposes US interests have thus no right to criticize  the UN in the case of Sudan. Becuase that would mean to criticize themselves.

The UNESCO and biosphere and heritage thing, well I don't understand at all. I know UNESCO reforms happened in the 1970's because of critisism. But I wasn't born then so I don't know what happened. Can't know everything. It had something to do with a claim that the communists and the Third World used UNESCO to attack the US. Haha.

Just as Grenada and Iraq attacked the US? Right?

The UN has no armed forces.

The second, I think people have the right to refuse vaccins. But here we are talking about 6 year olds. They do not carry responsibilities. They parents do. Now if their parents have delusions which means the child will be denied vaccins then the state has the right to intervine to protect the right of the child.

Why can't you vote in the US? Because you guys continue to vote for the democrats and the republicans while not voting for other parties. Start local. Start your own political party and stop voting for the dems and the reps.

[ada]

why would this be mandatory for 6th grade girls? 

Because it could save their lives.

what happened to abstinence.

It doesn't work.

But I agree. We should turn a blind eye and preach abstinence while our daughters die of cervical cancer.

[pion]

I totally agree with Pianistimo and Ada - we should teach our little girls abstinance, because this is what God wants. If they go against God's word and die of cervical cancer, then it's just God's way of punishing those that go against His word. But in the interest of FAIRNESS, I think that all little boys who have premarital sex should also be punishable by a long and painful death. Since boys do not have cervices, perhaps they could be burnt at the stake instead?

[thalbergmad]

I totally agree with Pianistimo and Ada - we should teach our little girls abstinance, because this is what God wants. If they go against God's word and die of cervical cancer, then it's just God's way of punishing those that go against His word. But in the interest of FAIRNESS, I think that all little boys who have premarital sex should also be punishable by a long and painful death. Since boys do not have cervices, perhaps they could be burnt at the stake instead?

If that is sarcasm it is funny.

If not, it is worrying.

Thal

[asyncopated]

what happened to abstinence.

What happened to condoms?

https://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/german-wang-spray-is-instant-condom-from-liquid-rubber-to-sweet-love-in-one-second-217933.php
https://blog.wired.com/biotech/2006/12/the_worlds_tidi.html

[pianistimo]

for sixth graders.  it's like saying 'go at it.'  i am in favor of going back to girls and boys schools, frankly.  they'd be less distracted and actually keep up with the foreign population in grades.  it's amazing how cultures show advantage to keeping them separate until at least 16-17.  i mean, college is another thing-  but middle school and highschool is kinda critical for keeping them on track so they can even GO to college.

[asyncopated]

for sixth graders.  it's like saying 'go at it.' 

Ype sixth graders are like rabbits.

I'm not a parent, so this will be bad advice.   My current standpoint is don't try to over protect your childern by shielding time and insisting that they be kept in the dark, or just giving them half the story.  Homones will always win out.  The best you can do is educate them accurately about sex, teach them responsibility, have faith in whatever they choose to do and always love them no matter what happens.   This is the best protection you can give, teaching them to think for themselves and giving them the freedom to do so.

[prometheus]

I am in favor of going back to girls and boys schools, frankly.  [...]  it's amazing how cultures show advantage to keeping them separate until at least 16-17.

We know it is bad for the children. It harms the children learning to interact with the different sex.

Yes, I know. It is a way to oppress females and you are for that while blaming me that I hate females( still wondering where the hell that came from).

[ada]

The whole point about giving young girls the HPV vaccine is to protect them against the virus for when they start having sex. This could be at the age of bloody 30 for all it matters. It isn't giving them a ticket to fornicate.

One in four women carry the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV) which can cause cervical cancer. By getting rid of the virus you massively reduce deaths from cervical cancer.

Pre-pubertal girls are also vaccinated against scarlet fever (here at least) which we know can result in birth defects if the mother gets it while she's pregnant.

It doesn't mean we're saying to 12 year olds, ok, now you're vaccinated you can go out and screw yourself silly and have babies. It's a way of ensuring immunity before they reach adulthood.

One of the unfortunate consequences of fundamentalist religion is that it acts as a vaccination against logic.

[ahinton]

The whole point about giving young girls the HPV vaccine is to protect them against the virus for when they start having sex. This could be at the age of bloody 30 for all it matters. It isn't giving them a ticket to fornicate.

One in four women carry the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV) which can cause cervical cancer. By getting rid of the virus you massively reduce deaths from cervical cancer.

Pre-pubertal girls are also vaccinated against scarlet fever (here at least) which we know can result in birth defects if the mother gets it while she's pregnant.

It doesn't mean we're saying to 12 year olds, ok, now you're vaccinated you can go out and screw yourself silly and have babies. It's a way of ensuring immunity before they reach adulthood.

One of the unfortunate consequences of fundamentalist religion is that it acts as a vaccination against logic.

Very well said! - and very necessarily so, too (or so it would appear); what irks me most about some of the so-called Christian fundamentalists is their sheer lack of sympathy for certain aspects of the human condition and absence - I almost wrote abnegation - of the very characteristic for which true Christianity is supposedly best known - human compassion. That said, you, "ada", had the good and broadminded sense in this context not to specify "Christian fundamentalism" but "fundamentalist religion" as a whole; as I'm sure we both appreciate, the kind of backward, barbarous and patronising holier-than-thou attitude that you so rightly attack is the province not of true Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and so on but of what we have all had to come to know and recognise as the "fundamentalist" faction/s of whichever of the above persuasion/s you happen to choose at any given moment; this is why I find so much of this kind of oppressive, Urtext-fetish-ridden and despotic ranting so revoltingly distasteful - because it is not only anti-humanitarian but also anti-religious.

Whilst I realise that you are not a medical practitioner but a medico-scientific journalist, I recognise that your rôle is a vital one in bringing these and other important matters to public attention; keep up the good work!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

where's the compassion of government for those who express different belief structures?  there is none.  you line up the girls and give them the vaccination.  they take the brunt of this?  while the guys just say - yeah, it's ok. 

if i was in michigan - i'd march right up to the woman's door that thought of this topic and debate it in person. 

that's like me having a wild thought at 3 in the morning and making it a rule of law by noon.  that everyone should be affected.  you all don't know what crazy IS!  crazy affects 99% of the population when it's a person in government.

[prometheus]

It doesn't matter what you believe, you will still be affected the same way by the virus and the vaccin.

As for those children. They are protected from their religious nut parents who are trying to deny their children essential medical prevention of diseases based on delusions they got from the writing of bronze age people who had no idea at all about something like a virus.

[pianistimo]

if it is proven that abstinence keeps a girl free from sexually transmitted diseases which affect the pelvis and are found NOW by HPV to CAUSE cervical cancer - who do you think created it this way in the first place?  God.  as a preventative. 

[ada]

if it is proven that abstinence keeps a girl free from sexually transmitted diseases which affect the pelvis and are found NOW by HPV to CAUSE cervical cancer - who do you think created it this way in the first place?  God.  as a preventative. 

Susan, please take one second to think.

A woman "saves" herself for her husband and marries at age 25, a certified virgin. However, unknown to her, her husband is a carrier of HPV and he passes it on to her on her wedding night.

Years down the track that woman, who was denied the HPV vaccine by her religious parents, develops cancer and dies.

How does that fit into god's idea of tough love? Please explain why he saw fit to punish that woman with death?

[pianistimo]

if she obtained the vaccine in sixth grade - no one knows today if the vaccine is long-lasting.  acccording to www.cancer.gov (have to look up vaccines or something - to get there) - HPV's are a group of more than 80 different types of HPV's.  the vaccine offers no protection against these other types because it is only the HPV-16 that supposedly is able to vaccinate a person for life.  but, if you RELY on the vaccine - it's not going to be a preventative measure for sixth grade girls from getting cancer from the other types.

i'm not saying that a lot of teenagers are not sexually active.  but, instead of only giving them the supposed 'good news' that they won't get cancer - why not also give the other side of the story.  that women that wait - have 35% or more chance that they will NEVER get the virus esp if they do not marry somone who also has sex early.  having sex early just increases your chance to get any and every disease you might want to choose from.  like a buffet.

i think it is false hope and very unfair to single out girls in SIXTH grade.

i'm not the only one who thinks it's a 'yes' sign.

[asyncopated]

i'm not the only one who thinks it's a 'yes' sign.

Don't you think that's a problem with education in schools and at home, parent just being rather stupid about these things, rather than a problem with the vaccine? 

[pianistimo]

i believe it's parents and educators raising their hands - and saying 'we can't do anything about it - let's deal with the consequences.'  why not institute proactively and have people who already have each disease come in and speak to the class about it.  i've never seen someone with aids come in.  they just say - 'comdoms fix all.'

[thalbergmad]

if it is proven that abstinence keeps a girl free from sexually transmitted diseases

You ought to go on Mastermind.

Name:  Pianistimo
Subject: The bleedin obvious

It is proven that kissing toilet seats increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

[prometheus]

...who do you think created it this way in the first place?  God.  as a preventative. 

It isn't really working? Is it? Same with AIDS. Even the pope starts to doubt this now.

Your god must be really stupid. Even the pope's god is a little smarter than yours.

[thalbergmad]

Even the pope's god is a little smarter than yours.

And possibly nastier as Ratzinger used to head the Inquisition.

Thal

[asyncopated]

i believe it's parents and educators raising their hands - and saying 'we can't do anything about it - let's deal with the consequences.'  why not institute proactively and have people who already have each disease come in and speak to the class about it.  i've never seen someone with aids come in.  they just say - 'comdoms fix all.'

Firstly, vaccines and condoms are in completely different classes.  One is associated directly with sex and they other with a disease, or virus, on associated only indirectly.  I don't really know if it's a good thing to lump both together.  They are clearly different to me. 

Let's talk about condoms and leave vaccines aside for now.  I am for teaching childern/teenagers to think for themselves.  The earlier you teach them to be resposible and not overprotect them the better.  They grow up to become better people who are well equiped to handle life.

There is more than enough statistics to suggest that whether we like it or not, there is a significant proportion of teenages, in developed countries such as the US and UK who are sexually active.  Moreover, statistics have shown that the age at which people are becoming sexually active is steady getting younger.  One could speculate what the reasons maybe.  Education, mass media, less strongly bound family unit, people being more open about sex, etc.. Whatever the case maybe the prudent course for politicians and medical advisors, surely must be to say if you do have sex, and we are not encouraging you to (make that abundantly clear), but if you choose to, please, please, please use a condom.

This is the only advice that one can give because you really don't know what your teens are upto.  And I'd really rather not see instances of sexually transmited disease, be it hiv or not, shooting up in the teenage population, because some silly parent went to protest saying, "no, no, no they shouldn't be having sex in the first place."  Practical choices are sometimes necessary.  The moral standards or society are not all the same.  One could wish that they were, but you would be living in a non-existant utopia.  At the end of the day, i reiterate, the only prudent course is the practical one of prevention rather than panic.

BTW, like i say I am really pro teaching teenagers to think for themselves.  If a teenager reasons that abstinance a choice that the would like to make, I would fully encourage it.

[prometheus]

<posted in the wrong thread>

[timothy42b]

if it is proven that abstinence keeps a girl free from sexually transmitted diseases which affect the pelvis and are found NOW by HPV to CAUSE cervical cancer - who do you think created it this way in the first place?  God.  as a preventative. 

It is selfevident that abstinence would prevent these diseases.  No disagreement.  No proof necessary.

Where  proof would be necessary would be to find out if abstinence promoting programs keep girls (or boys, I suppose) free from diseases.  Fortunately we have data on this.  Unfortunately it is in the wrong direction.  Abstinence programs do not result in perfect compliance, human nature and the force of teenage hormones being what it is.  But they do result in not having condoms available.  Therefore there is MORE unprotected sex instead of less, and more disease and more pregnancy.  Every study so far has shown this.  Abstinence programs may be good in theory but they just don't work in the real world.