Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Health Safety Concerns Being Well Addressed in Clinical Drug Trials?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
WTAF? It's an often silent disease that can eventually become cancer and its spread can be stopped.
And, I'm sorry, but what nebulous objective moral authority does this stance come from? It's grounded, as far as I know, in a decidedly religious thinking that has no place in a discussion on public health and safety. The whole world doesn't ascribe to the values of any one religion or its precepts.
Furthermore, multiple sexual partners happen for more reasons than "loose" morals.
20 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »counting_kilojoules wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Or we could just promote more responsible behavior instead of vaccinating children against an STD.
Even when the ideal was sex with one person until you died it didn't often happen. I really don't think you've got a chance of getting anyone to follow that kind of behaviour now. And if you don't? HPV is so common, you're pretty much guaranteed to get it.
The ideal hasn’t changed.
Really? Because I certainly don't want my first boyfriend back!
Anyway, ideals are stupid things to base health risks on. Especially when not everyone agrees on them. If we have a vaccine that works, I'd rather use that than hope that everyone stops having sex (especially since, historically speaking, people have always had sex, even when the risks were far greater. Why when the risks are far lower would people stop having it now?)5 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Isn't it possible though that 100 years ago, out-of-wedlock babies were claimed as the grandparents' child or forced people into shotgun weddings so were never actually reported even though they technically happened?
And isn't it possible that 100 years ago many people had undiagnosed STDs, whether due to fear of anyone knowing or simply not having access to a diagnosis?
Not to mention I don't think there's any good record of how many illegal abortions were being performed 100 years ago.15 -
Cancer sucks! Even if your a hooker I personally don't wish cancer on you! Prevention is amazing.....even for those people who listened to their parents and saved themselves for marriage only to be given HPV by an unfaithful spouse. Yeah, christian folks sin too
8 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Isn't it possible though that 100 years ago, out-of-wedlock babies were claimed as the grandparents' child or forced people into shotgun weddings so were never actually reported even though they technically happened?
And isn't it possible that 100 years ago many people had undiagnosed STDs, whether due to fear of anyone knowing or simply not having access to a diagnosis?
Not to mention I don't think there's any good record of how many illegal abortions were being performed 100 years ago.
Exactly.
I read an article recently about an unmarried mothers and childrens' home in Ireland. Pregnant girls and women were sent there until they gave birth. The conditions were horrible and a lot of the children died. I imagine a lot of the girls went back to their lives rather traumatised and never told anyone what had happened.
My great, great grandmother was born out of wedlock. I guess there was nowhere to send her mother in a small rural community in Australia back then (and no hiding it either). People don't change much and no matter how much we romanticise the past people were having sex. Since the consequences are so much less now, why would they suddenly stop now, after all this time? Especially, since for an increasing number of people, there isn't a moral reason anymore either.2 -
counting_kilojoules wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Isn't it possible though that 100 years ago, out-of-wedlock babies were claimed as the grandparents' child or forced people into shotgun weddings so were never actually reported even though they technically happened?
And isn't it possible that 100 years ago many people had undiagnosed STDs, whether due to fear of anyone knowing or simply not having access to a diagnosis?
Not to mention I don't think there's any good record of how many illegal abortions were being performed 100 years ago.
Exactly.
I read an article recently about an unmarried mothers and childrens' home in Ireland. Pregnant girls and women were sent there until they gave birth. The conditions were horrible and a lot of the children died. I imagine a lot of the girls went back to their lives rather traumatised and never told anyone what had happened.
My great, great grandmother was born out of wedlock. I guess there was nowhere to send her mother in a small rural community in Australia back then (and no hiding it either). People don't change much and no matter how much we romanticise the past people were having sex. Since the consequences are so much less now, why would they suddenly stop now, after all this time? Especially, since for an increasing number of people, there isn't a moral reason anymore either.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3004949/mass-grave-containing-remains-of-babies-discovered-in-sewage-tank-at-notorious-mother-and-baby-home-where-800-children-died/
Ah, it was a better time...13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Or we could just promote more responsible behavior instead of vaccinating children against an STD.
Schools and parents are constantly promoting responsible behaviour when it comes to sexual intercourse. If by "responsible behaviour" you actually mean promoting abstinence I think you're wasting your breath. Morality has no bearing here. Who decided "saving" yourself til marriage was the right thing to do?6 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Isn't it possible though that 100 years ago, out-of-wedlock babies were claimed as the grandparents' child or forced people into shotgun weddings so were never actually reported even though they technically happened?
And isn't it possible that 100 years ago many people had undiagnosed STDs, whether due to fear of anyone knowing or simply not having access to a diagnosis?
Not to mention I don't think there's any good record of how many illegal abortions were being performed 100 years ago.
The bottom line is there were social stigmas inflicted on people who were promiscuous (multiple sex partners before or outside of marriage, and in the case of women any sex partners before or outside of marriage).
Those stigmas were powerful, emotionally painful and economically devastating and people sought to avoid them for reasons of common sense. So they behaved and kept their pants on a whole lot more often than people do now. And I'm pretty sure anecdotally, that's well understood by anyone willing to face the historical reality of Western societies on an aggregate level. Lefties think such incentivizing consequences were and are awful, unfair, barbaric and archaic. Even though such attitudes preserved reasonably good reproductive health and traditional family cohesion, the building blocks of any first world society. Conservatives differ. So there's that.
Personally I think Western societies are so degraded and degenerate that there's no coming back from where we are and it's only going to get worse. The levels of sexually transmitted disease have never been higher. And I suspect there will be plenty more yet to be identified or yet to develop due to overwhelmingly sexually glutinous attitudes with potentially catastrophic outcomes.
And I'm mostly coming from the perspective of observation. Personally, I'm an outlier. I'm a late middle age female who consciously chose not to have children without regret and would probably not be fit for most traditional marriage approaches as I'm naturally quite dominant, bow to no domestic authority other than my own and am unrepentantly non conformist in many ways.
This is a serious question. Do you honestly believe that people used to keep their pants on when they feared society's shame?
Are you just specifically talking about the turn of the last century? A specific place in the world? I can't think of any period of history I'm aware of (so western world for the most part) where it looks like that is true. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Just want to add I do wish people would be more responsible and careful. But I don't believe even as a religious person that the ideal is one lifetime partner. And I don't see what any of this has to do with a vaccine that can keep people from getting cervical cancer.6 -
And no "good girls" get raped, either. Or maybe it's that rapists don't have STDs?18
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »counting_kilojoules wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Isn't it possible though that 100 years ago, out-of-wedlock babies were claimed as the grandparents' child or forced people into shotgun weddings so were never actually reported even though they technically happened?
And isn't it possible that 100 years ago many people had undiagnosed STDs, whether due to fear of anyone knowing or simply not having access to a diagnosis?
Not to mention I don't think there's any good record of how many illegal abortions were being performed 100 years ago.
Exactly.
I read an article recently about an unmarried mothers and childrens' home in Ireland. Pregnant girls and women were sent there until they gave birth. The conditions were horrible and a lot of the children died. I imagine a lot of the girls went back to their lives rather traumatised and never told anyone what had happened.
My great, great grandmother was born out of wedlock. I guess there was nowhere to send her mother in a small rural community in Australia back then (and no hiding it either). People don't change much and no matter how much we romanticise the past people were having sex. Since the consequences are so much less now, why would they suddenly stop now, after all this time? Especially, since for an increasing number of people, there isn't a moral reason anymore either.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3004949/mass-grave-containing-remains-of-babies-discovered-in-sewage-tank-at-notorious-mother-and-baby-home-where-800-children-died/
Ah, it was a better time...
How ironic that you would say so. How many babies died from being "aborted" on demand in just a single year in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade? And yes, I do mean babies. The age of independent viability is at 20 weeks of gestation. Abortion is legally obtained on demand up to the very end of the third trimester in the U.S. Better times? I don't think so.
100 years ago mothers were trying to abort using turpentine or herbs like pennyroyal. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it just gave them liver or kidney damage (or both). Or they went to abortionists. Which, given abortion was illegal was unregulated and dangerous. I'd rather safe, legal abortions because desperate people do desperate things and then they die horribly.
7 -
counting_kilojoules wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »counting_kilojoules wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Isn't it possible though that 100 years ago, out-of-wedlock babies were claimed as the grandparents' child or forced people into shotgun weddings so were never actually reported even though they technically happened?
And isn't it possible that 100 years ago many people had undiagnosed STDs, whether due to fear of anyone knowing or simply not having access to a diagnosis?
Not to mention I don't think there's any good record of how many illegal abortions were being performed 100 years ago.
Exactly.
I read an article recently about an unmarried mothers and childrens' home in Ireland. Pregnant girls and women were sent there until they gave birth. The conditions were horrible and a lot of the children died. I imagine a lot of the girls went back to their lives rather traumatised and never told anyone what had happened.
My great, great grandmother was born out of wedlock. I guess there was nowhere to send her mother in a small rural community in Australia back then (and no hiding it either). People don't change much and no matter how much we romanticise the past people were having sex. Since the consequences are so much less now, why would they suddenly stop now, after all this time? Especially, since for an increasing number of people, there isn't a moral reason anymore either.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3004949/mass-grave-containing-remains-of-babies-discovered-in-sewage-tank-at-notorious-mother-and-baby-home-where-800-children-died/
Ah, it was a better time...
How ironic that you would say so. How many babies died from being "aborted" on demand in just a single year in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade? And yes, I do mean babies. The age of independent viability is at 20 weeks of gestation. Abortion is legally obtained on demand up to the very end of the third trimester in the U.S. Better times? I don't think so.
100 years ago mothers were trying to abort using turpentine or herbs like pennyroyal. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it just gave them liver or kidney damage (or both). Or they went to abortionists. Which, given abortion was illegal was unregulated and dangerous. I'd rather safe, legal abortions because desperate people do desperate things and then they die horribly.
I'd be happy to talk to you about abortion off thread via PM. Which would include my personal experience with elective abortion(s) on demand. The first two in the first trimester and the third at the end of the second trimester. As Kinny72 pointed out, this thread probably isn't the place to discuss it as it's too political.
Unfortunately, I think that's the problem with this vaccine. (Or rather, the way it's thought of.) It's all bound up with politics and morality (which includes sex and abortion and all sorts of things like that) instead of being about preventing cancer. (And that's before you get to the anti-vaccine mob). I mean, I think there was only one poster who actually addressed the OPs actual question.4 -
It is a vaccine that can protect against cancer. Who cares how it is transmitted? The MMR vaccine protects against measles (as well as other diseases). Should we be concerned that they should not be exposed to air that may contain this virus? Why be concerned that our children be exposed to tetanus? How dare we let them be exposed to a microbe commonly found in soil? And what about bacterial meningitis, which can be transmitted by exposure to saliva?
We need to divorce this vaccine from moral constructs. Human beings are fallable! We are not, nor have we ever been, perfect. Both my girls have been vaccinated against HPV. It doesn't mean that I don't educate them on safe sex.
Also, for my girls, I am more concerned with the risk of pregancy. I have never understood the backlash with this vaccine because my greatest fear would be an unwanted pregnancy.
ETA: I didn't want anyone to think I linked this vaccine to pregancy. I was trying to say that I link unprotected sex to pregnancy, which would be one of my greatest concerns.11 -
If for no other reason than the fact that sex is not always consensual, this vaccine should be widely available and promoted and not at all linked to moral constructs.12
-
So Gale, I did click through to your link. It is a ridiculously long article written to tug on heartstrings. I skimmed the first quarter or so. I noticed a link at the top of the article to an opinion from the medical editor and read that instead. The gist seems to be that the trial for Gardisil may have ignored a possible link to CFS. I don't know enough about the process to be able to determine whether that's the case or not. If it did, I think it would be interesting to find out if this is an isolated incident or if shady dealings in these sorts of trials is a thing. Regardless, all treatments have possible side effects, participation in clinical trials always carries a risk, and the medical editor said she believed that the benefits of wide distribution of the vaccine far outweighs the possible risk, which is as of yet just asserted, not confirmed. I'm not sure what conclusion you wanted people to draw, but that's what I got.4
-
It is a vaccine that can protect against cancer. Who cares how it is transmitted? The MMR vaccine protects against measles (as well as other diseases). Should we be concerned that they should not be exposed to air that may contain this virus? Why be concerned that our children be exposed to tetanus? How dare we let them be exposed to a microbe commonly found in soil? And what about bacterial meningitis, which can be transmitted by exposure to saliva?
We need to divorce this vaccine from moral constructs. Human beings are fallable! We are not, nor have we ever been, perfect. Both my girls have been vaccinated against HPV. It doesn't mean that I don't educate them on safe sex.
Also, for my girls, I am more concerned with the risk of pregancy. I have never understood the backlash with this vaccine because my greatest fear would be an unwanted pregnancy.
ETA: I didn't want anyone to think I linked this vaccine to pregancy. I was trying to say that I link unprotected sex to pregnancy, which would be one of my greatest concerns.
By "safe sex" you probably mean sex with a condom? Condoms do not stop the transmission of HPV or the herpes virus. Both viruses occur from virus exposed skin to skin friction/contact, not from infected bodily fluid. And genital warts and genital herpes blisters are both transmittable without an active outbreak. The virus "sheds" for approximately a few days a month asymptomatically. That is the window of time during which the virus is transmittable (not including when an outbreak is active, during which the virus is most transmittable).
The scroetum (I had to intentionally misspell this word to avoid the kitten filter) is unprotected with condom use. As is the perianal area for both partners. Oral herpes blisters were once thought to be non transmittable to the genitals and vice versa. This has been shown not to be true. Cross contamination can and does occur between HSV1 (oral) and HSV2 (genital) - also when visible blisters are and aren't present.
The best thing you can teach your girls is that the risk of transmission of certain sexually transmitted infections can be greatly reduced by the use of condoms, while also advising that condoms offer limited to zero protection against HSV and HPV. Both of which are permanent and incurable, with herpes in particular being very socially stigmatizing.
In other words, there is no safe sex and that phrase should be permanently done away with.
Genital herpes can also occur if you touch a cold sore/canker sore on your own face then touch your bits. No partner needed.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
And, I'm sorry, but what nebulous objective moral authority does this stance come from? It's grounded, as far as I know, in a decidedly religious thinking that has no place in a discussion on public health and safety. The whole world doesn't ascribe to the values of any one religion or its precepts.
Isn't the US establishing some form of foaming at the mouth caliphate at the moment?10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Well the railing against the specific treatment is all very amusing, but I'm not convinced that is material to the article.
Amusingly the "journalist" acknowledges that the specific example used has no demonstrable relationship with the symptoms now experienced, so it would appear to be designed to generate just the moralistic hubris we've seen here.
Medical trials carry risk. That's the nature of the discipline. I'd also very easy to attribute later conditions, and given the nature of a trial it places the testing organisation on the defensive straight away.
The alternative is, of course, to release medication without trial. Or not to advance the science. I don't see either as a better option.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Or we could just promote more responsible behavior instead of vaccinating children against an STD.
In the specific case the efficacy of the vaccination is significantly lowered if the individual has already been exposed. ISTR seeing something recently about reduced attendance at cervical screening through a misplaced confidence, meaning that the cohort most at risk of developing cervical cancer are in the 25-40 age range. Vaccinated after likely infection but still at higher risk of developing.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I figured that's what he was saying. Wasn't it? To teach your kids some responsible behaviors? And that being with only one person in your whole life was the ideals still?
I took that is him saying that if people were responsible enough to not be with anyone else until they found someone to marry.. but since a lot of marriages end within a few years you would then have to give the marriage some wait time that this is how you would not have to be vaccinated for HPV
That might be what he plans to teach his children. I don't see how that has anything to do with anything anyone else should or should not be doing.
I'm questioning the paradigm of shoulds regarding sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the issue of the vaccine isn't related to morality.
Of course it is.
HPV is an STD. Thus sexuality and morality are inescapably part of the conversation.
Far more important and immediate that sexuality and morality is practicality. And the fact is that morality doesn't cure or even slow the spread of STDs. Look to abstinence only AIDS prevention education in countries with high prevalence. They have a far, far higher instance of infection than areas which provide practical prevention advice and really, the only thing bstinence only AIDS prevention education has achieved is a higher instance of child-brides (the younger they are, the better chance they're a virgin).
It's only ineffective if it's not followed.
But it's not. It never ever has been. Ergo, it does not work and other options need to be explored.
Funny though how the out-of-wedlock birthrates and STDs in Western societies were dramatically lower 100 years ago. And that was long before the easy availability of pharmaceutical birth control, legal abortion on demand and the almost complete saturation of moral relativism in those same Western societies today.
Let's go back to inbreeding. It has no side effects (well, you know apart from genetic disorders) and hey-strong family bonds are moral, right?7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions