bbauska wrote:I do not want to prohibit the use of this vaccine. I just don't want it mandated to be used on my child. Let me make that choice.

And I have said that I agree on that point. But, I have also said that I think that I would agree with those health professionals who advocate a programme to administer the vaccine to the children of those who do not opt out. I would prefer it to cover both genders (so as to confer greater protection to all), and I don't see why the taxpayer is egregiously harmed by paying for it.

As for your choice, that's fine and dandy for you to make. It's not one that I would make, to be honest, as I've known women who have had cervical cancer and pre-cancerous lesions. Without evidence of an actual risk of danger from the vaccine, I can't think of a reason not to allow it.

****Continued post after Danivon's last posting****
I am all for people using condoms, monogamy and abstinence. I do not wish to prohibit any of those either!

Neither do I, and never said that I did. I said that they are not that effective as policies to avoid HPV.

Condoms are noted not to provide full protection, just a reduced risk.

Monogamy also provides a reduced risk, but it's no guarantee. Firstly because it's dependent on another person also being monogamous. Secondly because current monogamy does not mean someone was previously monogamous.

Abstinence for life may work. But unless you are proposing that we all confine our daughters to nunneries, it's not much of an option. Abstinence unto marriage may work. But (as for monogamy), it depends a lot on your spouse, and that you only ever have one spouse (widows / widowers are not to marry?)

The vaccine is proven to be very effective, and more so that the above. I can't see why not advocate all of them.

By the way, Brad: Do you actually wish to opt out? If so, what is your main reason:

1) You think the vaccine may not be fully safe
2) You think it may encourage immorality
3) You dislike the idea of mandates
4) Other

3

So, basically, does this mean that if there were a State-run programme of vaccination that you could opt-out of, you would not actually opt out?

Because it seems to me that the alternative (to opt-out because you object to a mandate that is not being imposed) is illogical.

I disagree with the mandate of forcing a populace do do something, whether it be vaccinations, mandatory insurance, or forcing to wear uniforms of the nation.

I have only been saying it is not the right of the government to mandate that I get a vaccination for my child. But you knew that. If the populace wants to get what they feel if a beneficial vaccine, by all means do it. If I want to, I will also. I guess you could call me "pro-choice" on this issue.

I think you misunderstand. If there is an opt-out, then it not a mandate, by definition. If the only reason to opt-out is 'because I can', I'm unsure what the point is. If there is more of a basis to it, fair enough, but that's what I was asking.

So, I agree with you that you should be able to opt out, but I don't yet understand why you actuallly would. It's not even clear that you would, tbh

I think we are saying different things with the same result. We both want children protected. You expect the government to ensure protection, and I expect parents. I say it is the populace's responsibility to take care of it's children. It is not the government.

I feel the same way about seatbelts. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to fine people if not seatbelted. I would NEVER let me or my family in a vehicle without seatbelts. But that is MY choice. Do people do dumb things? Surely they do. Do we need to legislate to ensure they don't?

No.

I am getting the impression that something is being lost in translation here.

Who talked about fines? Who said you would be forced? I'm asking why you would choose to opt out, not why you want the right to. Take the right to opt out as read, ok? Right - why do you want to exercise that right?

Oh, on seatbelts, actually not wearing them endangers the lives of others, not just yourself.

Rick Perry "mandated" that all children in Texas have the vaccine. You do have the option to "opt out". My point is why have the mandate in the first place if you have the opportunity to opt out. Why not just have the opportunity to "opt in"? As long as the FDA does not restrict the use of this vaccine, parents would have the choice to get it. Do you see a difference in what we are saying?

Actually, Perry didn't get to mandate it.

The difference beween an opt out and an opt in is perhaps your issue, rather than 'mandates'. But of course you know that vaccination is less effective if the take up is low. So there is a point to a system that is for everyone bar those who opt out - herd immunity.

Well defined. Thank you.

This is the difference.

In a mandate with an opt out the vaccination would be given unless the parent says no.

What Brad wants is the vaccine available with an opt in. In otherwords the vaccine is not given unless the parent says yes.

One is a government mandate one is not.

How about this, completely optional, but the parent can later be charged with manslaughter if the child later dies as a result. And the child can sue for damages that can be collected against the parents' social security benefits, other pensions, and primary residence with ability to force sale to recover. As long as they are willing to take the full brunt of the consequences, than why shouldn't they be free to choose?

Can any of you guys (preferably all three) look up terms like 'herd immunity' to see if you can grasp why a voluntarist vaccination scheme is not going to be as effective? I get the impression that ideology is taking precedence over pragmatic concerns.

Look, if there is an opt-out, then the shots are not mandatory. So it's not a full mandate.

Neal, if her parents pre-decease her, does she sue herself?