PDA

View Full Version : OT: HPV Vaccine Recommended by CDC!


CarmenIbanez
06-29-2006, 03:45 PM
The Centers for Disease Control announced today a government recommendation that all 11 and 12 year old girls be vaccinated against HPV. The vaccine prevents a vast majority of cervical cancer, vaginal cancer and genital warts.

I actually cried when I heard the announcement today. It is a banner day for women's healthcare.

:happydance:

Jan in CA
06-29-2006, 04:02 PM
:cheering: :cheering: :cheering:

IndianPrincessSIP
06-29-2006, 04:07 PM
Banner Day?
When we have to protect our children at age 11 and 12 from sexually transmitted diseases?

How about a Banner Day would be that 'Abstinence was accepted and followed through as an effective form of disease control in the United States.'?

Oh but that isn't going to happen .....
So let's inject all of the children, (even though we can't for the boys yet because the studies just aren't done for them)



About 7 percent of children have had sexual intercourse before age 13

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060629/D8II1FC00.html

So let's vaccinate EveryOne! And make it manditory too dammit!

I vote no. I'll not offer up my child (or yours) as a guinea pig.

AnreeAce
06-29-2006, 04:14 PM
:cheering: :cheering: :cheering:

Let me just second that!

:cheering: :thumbsup: :cheering: :thumbsup: :cheering: :thumbsup: :cheering: :thumbsup:

Curlykat
06-29-2006, 04:17 PM
I vote no. I'll not offer up my child (or yours) as a guinea pig.

IndianPrincessSIP, I completely agree with you. :thumbsup:

gimmesanity
06-29-2006, 04:35 PM
I third that, IndianPrincess.

As parents who have chosen to only minimally vaccinate, DH and I are firm believers that we over-vaccinate as is.

This is just one more chemical that we're injecting into our children.

From cancer.gov (http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/cervical-cancer-vaccine1102):

"The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCIís Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, itís unknown whether the vaccineís protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer."

This is not the end-all, be-all of cervical cancer. Safe sex education in our schools and in our homes is what we need more of, not more knee-jerk reactions.

~Sharon

DoulaLyndsey
06-29-2006, 04:36 PM
I vote no. I'll not offer up my child (or yours) as a guinea pig.

IndianPrincessSIP, I completely agree with you. :thumbsup:

Ditto!

iza
06-29-2006, 05:58 PM
Well... come on, now... nobody said "Let's have the vaccine, get naked and have sex with everybody"! The strategy has to go in many directions at the same time. Yes, safer sex is good. But ALSO, protecting girls FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES from a very dangerous disease. Of course, as parents, you have to make a choice, and that's fine... but I personally find we should be happy when a vaccine or a cure is found for a disease, not being outraged!!! :?? These diseases affect real people in real families for all kinds of reasons and 200 000 women die every year of cervical cancer. I think this news about this vaccine diserves some respect, if only in memory of these women who died. With the number of women on this site, some of us will be affected by these diseases, whether we like it or not. Some of us might even have the HPV and not know it...

If I was dying from a disease and discovered that my parents didn't allow me to get the vaccine that could save my life, I would be very mad at them. Sorry but that's my point of view.

gimmesanity
06-29-2006, 06:24 PM
Iza,
Speaking for myself, it's not disrespect for the vaccine that I have. I'm against the insinuation that a shot is going to fix the problem. The HPV vaccine is not for life - they don't know how long the defense will last. When you get a vaccine, any vaccine, it's not for life. That's why you need to get boosters as you get older.

I'm willing to put money on the fact that the HPV vaccine will be targeted at a certain group: minority women from low-income areas. Globally, this vaccine will be aimed at women in developing countries. Instead of increasing awareness and paying for better health care for these women, the gov't is going to put a band-aid on the problem and give out these shots that may or may not be effective against cervical cancer, and it may or may not cause serious reactions. Anytime you put anything foreign in your body, especially something that's made with a myriad of chemicals, you run the risk of having a reaction. Keep adding these ingredients with repeated shots, and your chances increase.

Also, studies have yet to be conclusive on the effectiveness of the vaccine, so pap smears are still the best way to catch and treat cervical cancer early. A vaccine will serve as a justification to stop funding that help under-privledged women have access to such an expensive test.

I just don't want the shot to be a red herring drawing attention away from the true problem here.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-29-2006, 06:28 PM
Iza~
You never have to be sorry for your point of view.
At least you have one. :D

It is not so much that I disagree with the 'intent' of the vaccine. Of course I would that noone ever again be diagnosed with cancer, or any disease for that matter. And I can line up and say that yes I am one of those in the very long line that has been directly affected.

There was a drug that doctors freely prescribed in the late 60's for prenatal nasaua, that became responsible for many deformaties in the children they carried.
What exactly and how does this vaccine work? Will it offset a natural process? Drugs more drugs they bellowed and brayed, and the turtles way down in the pond were afraid...
they obeyed.

How about abstinence anyway?
How about a real look at the moral decay we woke up this morning in?

Would you really blame your Mom who had every intent of heart to care about your well being for mistakes that you made in your life, of your own volition?

brendajos
06-29-2006, 06:52 PM
there is something to be said, though, about the person who gets it from their spouse who had it without knowing.

i don't disagree with your point that abstinance is the best way to avoid disease but the fact is that if i go my whole life only having sex with my husband (who doesn't exist much to my mother's chagrin :rofling: ) that doesn't mean i couldn't contract HPV.

I am more incline to vaccinate less because there are so many conditions that are starting to be shown to be caused by them but the thing i celebrate in this is that it isn't really a "male issue" (for lack of a better phrase. We, as women, are so often left behind in medical advances that when we aren't forgotten I am always just a little bit happier.

*sigh* but the points made about them being targetted towards low income economies and what does it offsetting and such.......yes....i am very conflicted....lol

IndianPrincessSIP
06-29-2006, 07:10 PM
it isn't really a "male issue"

Of course it is, it is all of our issue. Men Women Human. Point in fact being your example of getting it from someone who didn't know they had it. Men get it, Women get it, we all get it. So why are we being the ones first out the gate to test the 'miracle' vaccine. Why not them?


We, as women, are so often left behind in medical advances

In what? Tell me because I really am curous to know. I have to say that I'm racking my brain trying to see how we are being slighted. Men die because of cancer, heart disease, etc.

We are all learning here, it's the great thing about having these discussions.

brendajos
06-29-2006, 07:21 PM
well that's why i put the quotes around it because of course it is a male issue as well.

And maybe my issue with the way women are treated by this government has more to do with things like the fact that they came out with the little blue pill and don't seem to be doing anything to deal with similar issues for women. And not only that but insurance covered it almost immediately while women were fighting for YEARS to get the pill covered.

that is the most obvious example of course but it is issues like that i have a problem with.

believe me i don't walk through life feeling like i got a raw deal being born a woman...i would just like some equity.... ;)

IndianPrincessSIP
06-29-2006, 07:32 PM
What is the little blue pill? Viagra? Please don't tell me we are talking about Viagra.
:lol:

brendajos
06-29-2006, 07:37 PM
YOU asked for an example............ :rollseyes:

IndianPrincessSIP
06-29-2006, 07:47 PM
You are most correct, I did ask for an example.

Viagra......muaaaaah.

Seriously, I can see your point, sort of. Viagra is a supplement to help a man....well you know, and from the happy faces of the ladies on the commercials, it helps a few women too. snicker.

I think it's turned into more of a recreational type drug anymore anyway. And of course it did get insurance blessing immediately because well it's much more 'necessary'. bleh

But
I have a hard time with the whole medical advancement leaning towards men theory, on the whole.

Please don't take offense because I sniggered at Viagra. I am sure it does help some people. Perhaps it was intended that we all 'slow' down with age somewhat. maybe?

gimmesanity
06-29-2006, 07:49 PM
Not to take away from the discussion, but a quick comment about "the blue pill"....

My mom was put on Nexium a few weeks ago, "the purple pill." I was telling DH how she's taking "the purple pill" and how it's supposed to be a miracle drug. He looked at me all grossed out and told me that he didn't need to know that my mom was on Viagra.

:roflhard:

Silly.

Viagra is an excellent example of how women are often left behind when it comes to advancements in health. It's still a patriarchal society. Just look at birth control...why haven't we made more advancements in developing a male birth control yet, yet we readily have Viagra? It's like as if highlighting male virility is more important. If you want to use a birth control method, your options for a male are using a rubber or a vasectomy. Yet, they expect women to ingest all sorts of hormones or insert things up our hoo-has, like as if getting knocked up was our faults.

Look at heart disease studies...it's not until recently that women are being educated about the risks of heart disease, eventhough we get it's just as big of a killer of women as it is for men.

As for the HPV vaccine, why aren't males being vaccinated, too? If we can prevent males from contracting hpv, then we can protect our little girls from getting it from them.


haha, I said "hoo-ha." ;)

iza
06-29-2006, 08:46 PM
Hmmm... of course, I think being skeptical of vaccines or medication is good. But I find that thinking that abstinence and moral will fix the problem just does not correspond to reality. On the CDC website I found this: "By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year." At LEAST 80% at age 50!!!! Most of the times, women have no symptoms and the virus disappears by itself. But for many others... there might be problem. Therefore, it does not depend on virtue, moral, or social status.

In the end, it's all about evaluating the risk. Is the risk of having problems with the vaccine is higher than taking the chance to get cancer? This is a personal decision, of course, but it's hard to think you have to impose it on your daughter - who might live much longer than you. But speaking for myself, if I was dying from cancer and somebody told me that all my mom had to do is allow me to get a vaccine, I'm pretty sure I would feel some bitterness, even though I love my mom and she's NEARLY perfect :D. She would be completely devastated.

IrishBaby
06-29-2006, 09:17 PM
As for the HPV vaccine, why aren't males being vaccinated, too? If we can prevent males from contracting hpv, then we can protect our little girls from getting it from them.




This is a really good question. I heard a scientist on NPR asked this question, and her response was that, "The HPV vaccine is a vaccine against a few types (out of more than 500) of this STD. However, in order to make it marketable, the manufacturer needs to tout it as a 'cancer vaccine,' not an STD vaccine." So, because men are not at risk for HPV-related cancer, they are not being vaccinated for it.

The same sort of thing happened with the Hepatitis B vaccine. It was marketed to teenagers and young men and women in the late 90s, and failed miserably. So the CDC recommended it be added to the mandatory vaccine schedule, and it's now given at birth, usually before a baby leaves the hospital.

The CDC knows that to get people vaccinated, they need be living under their parents' roof, and their parents need to be taking them to the doctor regularly. Teens don't visit the doctor as often, which is why this is being recommended for preteens.

Not saying it's a positive or a negative, just that that's the rationale.

Jan in CA
06-29-2006, 09:48 PM
I believe in vaccines. I also believe in abstinence for young adults, but is this realistic? NIMHO.

Finally... I am so glad that I live in a place where we can agree to disagree and not have a flaming problem in the forum. :thumbsup:

IndianPrincessSIP
06-29-2006, 11:31 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/BohenGallery/TheBardsColiseumIconShow/highfive.gif

craftymom
06-29-2006, 11:57 PM
Finally... I am so glad that I live in a place where we can agree to disagree and not have a flaming problem in the forum.


When I first started reading this thread, I immediately thought "Oh no." I have to tell you that it was fun and informative reading your posts and a tribute to you all that it stayed that way.

Jenelle
06-30-2006, 12:22 AM
This angers me..

In all honesty, this truely does. This is the generation that I live in(I'm 14), and that I have to grow up with. :rollseyes:

I personally don't even like people my age dating. It's more like a game rather than a relationship and commitment. :rollseyes:

What will they think of next? :(

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 01:37 AM
Ah Janelle~
I can't blame you for feeling like you do. The best that you can do, is just make the right choices for yourself.

People do what they want to do.

If you make the right decisions in your life, and it sounds like you do, then none of this or anything else they come up with is any reflection on you.
And you will be a positive example in your group. Besides you hang out with knitters so that makes you cool, in and of itself.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/BohenGallery/TheBardsColiseumIconShow/cuddle.gif

PS Keep an eye out ~ I just made the coolest shrug. I'll post a thread in the Whacha Knitting tomorrow when I get some good photos. It's my own pattern. :D

Jan in CA
06-30-2006, 01:43 AM
I personally don't even like people my age dating. It's more like a game rather than a relationship and commitment. :rollseyes:


I'm sorry it angers you. What IndianPrincessSIP said is correct. Make the best decisions for yourself is all you can do. FWIW my daughters weren't allowed to date till they were 16 and neither was I so I agree with you about this. You already know how I feel about the vaccine so we'll leave it at that.

ladyindica2000
06-30-2006, 12:04 PM
Banner Day?
When we have to protect our children at age 11 and 12 from sexually transmitted diseases?

How about a Banner Day would be that 'Abstinence was accepted and followed through as an effective form of disease control in the United States.'?

Oh but that isn't going to happen .....
So let's inject all of the children, (even though we can't for the boys yet because the studies just aren't done for them)



About 7 percent of children have had sexual intercourse before age 13

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060629/D8II1FC00.html

So let's vaccinate EveryOne! And make it manditory too dammit!

I vote no. I'll not offer up my child (or yours) as a guinea pig.

My best friend has genital herpes. Besides being amaizingly painfuly, they are now totally preventable. Frankly, yahoo. I just wish that this would have come sooner for her. Btw, she is not promiscious, her husband got them when he was a teenager and she contracted them from him.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 12:23 PM
Like I stated prior. I would that no one ever again got any disease, be it, cancer, genital herpes, or the birdflu, again.
I do not think that this vacine is the complete answer for the problem. Lets take perfectly healthy young girls and sock them with the disease to make them immune. Do you realize that sometimes it does opposite of what it is supposed to? That this is a New treatment, and that there probably will be a percentage that actually Get whatever they are innoculated with? For their own good, yes, because their future mate may give it to them.

The complete answer is abstinence. Your friends husbands abstinence in this case, be it now or years ago as a teenager. Makes no difference.

Yeah Yahoo.

iza
06-30-2006, 02:58 PM
IndianPrincessSIP, you said earlier that people make decisions for themselves. This also applies for sex. Sex behaviours are a highly personal thing that can not be imposed on anybody. What we must do though is to ensure that people protect themselves and their partners. Abstinence as the only national program against STDs does not work, it never did and it never will. It can be a personal choice and SHOULD certaintly be mentionned as a way to prevent diseases, and it SHOULD also be the "focus" for young teenagers. But you can not base an entire program just on this. To me it's a little like saying that there is no point in developing a cure for lung or colon cancer, since all we have to do is not to smoke and be vegetarian... you have a total control on your smoking and eating habits after all. However, you don't have any control on your partner's history... and they can lie to you to!!!

This vaccine is not about moral. It's about health. Did you know that at age 50, 80% of women will have been in contact with HPV? 80%!!!! By the time we try to get people to be abstinent (which I'm very skeptical of), what do we do? This is what doctors have to deal with. Not moral or philosophy. Real people with real diseases and real families suffering RIGHT NOW. This being said, I don't want to start a fight here... :oops: It is an interesting discussion and I am respectful of your opinion.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 03:22 PM
And I am absolutely respectful of yours and the others that have posted as well.


Abstinence as the only national program against STDs does not work, it never did and it never will.

That exactly is what I am getting at.
You see, when I saw the excitement about this vaccine by the originator of the thread my heart sank. Because as was stated, I think this is a kneejerk answer. Should studies be stopped because we can't be responsible in our sexual behaviour? No absolutely not, should cures and preventive measures be stopped? No absolutely not. What I am against, is absolute dogma that abstinence be treated as a will never happen, furggeddaboutit answer.

Is it possible that from henceforth people will act responsibly?
That the man, or woman, who knows he/she has a disease will never go forth and have unprotected sex again? We are selfish, and people don't care who or what they hurt, as long as they get what they want. It is pathetic.

But I stand by my original statement that I think it is rude to innoculate young girls against a disease, with a vaccine that may or may not work. It is dangerous, and it is irresponsible.

A turnaround to morally motivated behavior is really the only answer. Like it or not, it will work, whereas we can innoculate ourselves silly, and these diseases will only mutate, and overcome our tiny swords.

The answer is abstinence.

CarmenIbanez
06-30-2006, 03:41 PM
The reason that children have to be vaccinated instead of adults, is that the earlier the vaccine is given, the more effective it is. In other words, if you have already been exposed to HPV the vaccine will be less effective. This means that all the young women can still be abstinent, and when they have sex for the first time on their wedding night, they will be protected from a virus that could potentially end their lives. Or they can be abstinent, have sex for the first time on their wedding night and get HPV from their spouse, then potentially die from cancer.

As I have said in the past, I am not a proponent of abstinence. I am also not a proponent of pre-marital sex. But I do not believe that death should be the punishment for bad judgement. If suffering and death might be prevented, then that is what I am for.

While I have enjoyed reading all the opinions on this post, most of them positive and informative, I don't appreciate having someone judge my opinion as "kneejerk". This is a subject I have been following for years, read a lot about and feel deeply about, just as I imagine you have. Because we don't agree does not mean that I haven't given the issue a great deal of consideration.

CarmenIbanez
06-30-2006, 03:47 PM
I wanted to add something about vaccines in general. It is possible today to go without inoculations for many diseases and never have to suffer the consequences of those diseases. This is because the vast majority of the rest of us are vaccinated. I know the damage that vaccines can cause. My son has permanent brain damage from mercury preservatives that were in his vaccines. I see it as a small price to pay for the millions and millions of lives that have been saved and the suffering that has been prevented by the vaccines that we have the privilege of receiving here.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 03:51 PM
Well said.
I appreciate your level headed response, and I apologize if you took personally what I meant to be a much broader implication to the medical field, at large.
I am not as informed as many of you are with this. I have not followed it for years. I read a thread at a large bulletin board once, comprised of young adults, laughing and joking about STDs and it broke my heart. I have held my breath when polio was injected into my children and they broke out in an outrageous fever, asking God why? Why must we do this?

I am but one voice Bellowing in the wind to STOP. Stop the madness of AIDS and STDs. Stop being so friggin selfish people. Do Unto Others as you would have them do unto you. Be responsible.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 03:54 PM
I wanted to add something about vaccines in general. It is possible today to go without inoculations for many diseases and never have to suffer the consequences of those diseases. This is because the vast majority of the rest of us are vaccinated. I know the damage that vaccines can cause. My son has permanent brain damage from mercury preservatives that were in his vaccines. I see it as a small price to pay for the millions and millions of lives that have been saved and the suffering that has been prevented by the vaccines that we have the privilege of receiving here.

Amen to that, and God Bless you for being valient and brave enough to see the larger picture.

In a perfect world....

CarmenIbanez
06-30-2006, 04:01 PM
In the end, on this site, it is all about the love and respect. I wish I could translate 1% of what I have found on this site to the rest of the world!

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 04:08 PM
You do.
By learning and growing in tolerance and understanding. The learning that takes place here, and like places, translates into how we act in all aspects of our lives.


I condemn no one, for actions or mistakes of the past. How could I?
I condemn no one, for trusting the medical field to be working to make this world a safer place. Why would I?
What I would like for people to see, is that it really is the blind leading the blind. Ask the questions. Follow the leadings of your heart. Explain to your children that sex is a loaded gun. Teach them values. Stop being a nation of sheples, and ask the hard question.
Believe that good can overcome. And that abstience is viable, if people can grasp the wisdom of the Golden Rule.

misstialouise
06-30-2006, 04:28 PM
Abstinence goes against our genetic make up. At a genetic level, we exist to come together and procreate...

Even when abstinence was the widely accepted 'norm', kids were still having sex, getting pregnant.. so it's not a full proof prevention...

Pure and simple.

Of course we make the choice to have sex, we choose whether or not to use protection... etc etc...

There are also cases of virgins who have had NO sexual contact (including heavy petting), who have HPV or CIN changes.

I, myself, have had to have laser therapy for CIN2 changes in my cervix. Certainly nothing I'd want anyone else to go through. I've had girlfriends with CIN3 changes. None thankfully have gone into cervical cancer.

I think a vaccine that can help prevent this is FABULOUS!

Please don't forget about the cases of rape, molestation etc. The times where choice is taken away from you, you need to be protected against too.

Of course in an ideal world, we'd need no vaccines, our children would be safe and this thread would not need to exist.

The best we can do is educate our children, help keep them as safe as *we* can, and hope that they make good choices.

Forgive me if this post is a little disjointed, it's only 6:30am and I've been up for about 10 minutes with no tea...

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 04:48 PM
Nothing to forgive. Your sentiment is clear. That's a good thing, in my book.
:D


Here's a scenario.

Let's say next week, Bird Flu descended on America. Did all the horrible worse case scenario's imagined. Let's say an broadcast was issued that if you left your house, you would die.
Would you leave your house?
Of course not.

But people still have casual and unprotected sex.
Incredible.

Let's say you just saw a news flash that cucumbers were poison. Never eat another cucumber or you will surely die.
Why you would.
You never again would make a cucumber tomato salad. And it would be no big deal. Life would go on, a cucumberless life, and you wouldn't think anymore about it. But sex? Now that's a whole horse of a different color.

Do not I repeat do not ask that people stop having sex, anytime or anyplace or with whomever they want. We want it, and come life or death we will have it!

Genetic makeup?
No I beg to differ, that's an excuse in a hedonistic society to forego guilt about doing the right thing. Period

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 05:02 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that this vaccine is a complete solution nor that it should replace Pap smears.

Gardasil does not reduce the importance of the routine screenings that are responsible for cutting cervical cancer rates in the United States by 75 percent. Gardasil protects against two high-risk strains of human papillomavirus that cause most of the infections that lead to cervical cancer.
''You're preventing the bulk of these infections, but not all of them," said Bruce Gellin, one of the 15 panel members. ''Even if you're vaccinated, it doesn't mean that you're absolutely prevented from developing these infections," said Gellin, director of the National Vaccine Program Office.

While Merck highlighted the estimated $4 billion to $6 billion spent each year on cervical cancer screening, a company executive said it would promote the vaccine as complementing, not competing with, annual Pap tests.

''This company is absolutely committed to cervical cancer screening," Dr. Eliav Barr, Merck's senior director of clinical vaccine and biologics research, told the panel. ''This vaccine is not a replacement for cervical cancer screening."

The company also wants to market Gardasil to boys as young as 9, though the panel did not vote on that issue. Monica Farley, an infectious disease specialist who served as the panel's acting chairwoman, said the question of whether to sell the vaccine to boys was not on a list of items to be voted on prepared by the FDA. Males spread the human papillomavirus to women through sexual contact. Barr said Merck proposes a label for the vaccine that would permit ''gender-neutral" vaccination.

Lauri Markowitz, a Centers for Disease Control epidemiologist, cautioned others on the panel not to read too much into Merck estimates that vaccinating boys could prevent thousands of infections among women.

From http://www.nccc-online.org/ :
-11% of United States women report that they do not have regular cervical cancer screenings

-In the United States, About 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer disease each year and more than 3,900 women die in the USA each year from this disease.

-Women in developing countries account for about 85 percent of both the yearly cases of cervical cancer (estimated at 493,000 cases worldwide) and the yearly deaths from cervical cancer (estimated at 273,500 deaths worldwide).

-In the majority of developing countries, cervical cancer remains the number-one cause of cancer-related deaths among women.

-A woman who does not have cervical cancer screening on a regular basis significantly increases her chances of developing cervical cancer.

-High-Risk HPV Types are directly related to cervical cancer, yet many women are unaware of what HPV is or the relationship it has to cervical cancer disease.

Even if a women has had the HPV/cervical cancer vaccine, she will continue to require a cervical cancer screen by the Pap test. At this time, this vaccine only protects against 70% of the potential cervical cancer cases. The Pap smear has reduced cervical cancer rates in the United States by more then 70%. Pap smears, like the one you receive regularly, is the single most effective cancer screen in the history of medicine. Remember to have your Pap test. Early detection saves lives.

These are facts. Women, no matter how they contract it, die or suffer from HPV-caused cervical cancer. Men can also suffer from cancer induced by HPV.

A turnaround to morally motivated behavior is really the only answer. Like it or not, it will work, ...
To me this statement says abstinence will end the occurrence of HPV-related illnesses. Do you really truly believe that the world's entire population will follow 100% abstinence? Do you really believe that there is only one answer for an issue such as this? I find it hard to swallow that because you believe that abstinence is the only answer, that a vaccine should not in fact be celebrated. This is a vaccine that may lead to other similar treatments for other diseases. This is a vaccine that will save lives worldwide.

Also there are other ways of contracting STDs. I don't think that rape and sexual abuse are morally acceptable, but they will unfortunately continue to occur and the victims will be at a high risk of contracting STDs.

I'm still trying to grasp your point. Abstinence until marriage? Then sex is ok? What makes you think that all sex outside of marriage is immoral?

Respectfully disagreeing and openly celebrating news of the vaccine's approval,
Carol

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 05:15 PM
Carol~
Thank you for the links and the facts, also your arguments regarding my blanket assumptions that abstience is the complete cure-all for these terrible maladies. Am I advocating an about face of morality? Yes, am I advocating no sex until marriage? In a perfect world yes, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and my perfect world ideal may not be yours. What I am advocating is responsible behavior.

Abstinience and I will not be swayed is the answer to these sexual preditoristic diseases. It only makes sense. Don't do it, you won't get it. Be sure of your partner, make sure he/she isn't predisposed to casual sex.

Do I really believe that the world will follow 100 Percent Abstinence?
Why is it any different than the ficticious scenarios I put forth formerly? Why is sex so galdern important? Do you really think that you would shrival up and die if you don't have sex?

misstialouise
06-30-2006, 05:21 PM
Genetic makeup?
No I beg to differ, that's an excuse in a hedonistic society to forego guilt about doing the right thing. Period

I totally disagree with this. We did not survive as a species through practiced abstinence and no 'pre-marital' sex. Men & women came together, and children were made.

It's still prevalent in tribal culture, that as soon as a female is ready to procreate, she is 'married off' (or whatever the equivalent is), and this can be as early as 9 or 10 years old.

We are, essentially, animals.

When it comes down to it. We will have differing opinions, and that's cool.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 05:29 PM
Absolutely cool.
But I would offer this up for you to think about. We were admonished to go and procreate. (If you are a Biblical believer) We are predisposed to want children. It really is who we are. Our purpose in life.

It is also our purpose in life to eat. We must, to continue for these wonderful machines we call our body to survive we Must Eat! But if we eat to excess we become obese, with all of the obivious problems associated with that. If we don't curb the desire to eat nothing but icecream every waking moment of every day we will end up becoming obese.

It's called temperance.
We as a society do not need to go forth and poplulate the world. It is.
We as a society may lean on the excuse of it being a natural desire to want sex.
Sex is good. It feels good to have it, it was created thusly. But we can make a choice to temper it. It doesn't have to be the main focus of our life.

We can just say no.

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 05:33 PM
Carol~
Am I advocating an about face of morality? Yes, am I advocating no sex until marriage? In a perfect world yes, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and my perfect world ideal may not be yours. What I am advocating is responsible behavior.

Abstinience and I will not be swayed is the answer to these sexual preditoristic diseases. It only makes sense. Don't do it, you won't get it. Be sure of your partner, make sure he/she isn't predisposed to casual sex.

Do I really believe that the world will follow 100 Percent Abstinence?
Why is it any different than the ficticious scenarios I put forth formerly? Why is sex so galdern important? Do you really think that you would shrival up and die if you don't have sex?Is the only form of non-casual sex, that which occurs within marriage? If you believe that, then we will never agree on 'morally righteous sex'.

So as a separate point, do you think the vaccine should not be allowed at all, or are you just saying that in your perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary.

Oh, and by the way, in the past 7 years or so I don't feel that I've shriveled up at all. Thanks for making this about me.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 05:42 PM
I didn't have any intention of making this about you, and when I read back over my post I almost edited, thinking I had worded that incorrectly. I apologize, I should have been more careful in my wording. I completely understand your offense taken. It was rude of me.


That said, responsible sex is really all I am advocating.
Honest
Just people being friggin responsible, taking to heart, the simple do unto others rule.
I am also saying that if my daughter is to offered up as a 'testing' ground, someone better damn well be sure that this thing works. And I am saying that people should ask the questions, just like here and now.

I am asking, why is it so hard to grasp that abstinience is viable?

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 06:01 PM
That said, responsible sex is really all I am advocating.
Honest
Just people being friggin responsible, taking to heart, the simple do unto others rule.
I am also saying that if my daughter is to offered up as a 'testing' ground, someone better damn well be sure that this thing works. And I am saying that people should ask the questions, just like here and now.

I am asking, why is it so hard to grasp that abstinience is viable?

I accept your apology, but I was only trying to make a point that blanket assumptions are essentially a blanket over one's head.

I agree that people are selfish and this selfishness may come at the cost of another's life.

Testing ground? No medicine is ever guaranteed. Medicine is not a perfect science. It is always trial and error. I believe that parents have the right to refuse this vaccine for their children, so please don't allow your disapproval of it to hold it back.

I really don't think the argument for abstinence and the argument against this vaccine go hand in hand. I really think they are two separate issues. The argument for abstinence does not also support the argument against this vaccine. The argument for this vaccine does not in turn support the argument for casual sex. The argument for this vaccine supports life.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 06:13 PM
I really don't think the argument for abstinence and the argument against this vaccine go hand in hand. I really think they are two separate issues. The argument for abstinence does not also support the argument against this vaccine. The argument for this vaccine does not in turn support the argument for casual sex. The argument for this vaccine supports life

The argument for this vaccine supports life.
As does the argument for abstinence.
Casual sex is a killer
Stop having it.
I am neither for nor against this vaccine in particular. Honestly I am learning as we go, and have learned quite a bit right here in this thread. What I am against is the ideal that this vaccine will cleanse us all from these horrible diseases. Protect our children forever. I think that is misleading, as facts put forth before.

I cannot stop alone the progress of medicine. Nor would I want to even substantiate having the capability of doing so, and why in heavens name would I? I am just one person, asking why people have a hard time understanding that not having sex is the answer to stopping sexual diseases. Why is it that ?

haloheaven
06-30-2006, 06:24 PM
Yes, I'll vaccinate my children dear government who spys on us illegally, declares "free-speech zones", eminant domain , incarceration without trial etc.
Yes, sir I'll do everything you say, dear government who still refuses to acknowledge that most Autism is caused by vaccination.
People, for the love of god, do not vaccinate your children with this! It's just propaganda...
:)

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 06:44 PM
The argument for this vaccine supports life. What I am against is the ideal that this vaccine will cleanse us all from these horrible diseases. Protect our children forever. I think that is misleading, as facts put forth before.

What 'facts' were those? Who said this vaccine will cleanse us all from horrible diseases? Who said that children will be protected forever? I didn't quote everything I have read, but in fact it has been stated in news and medical sources that it is unknown how long the effects of this vaccine will last and that this vaccine is not a blanket cure for all causes of cervical cancer. I don't think anyone here mentioned any other diseases.

I cannot stop alone the progress of medicine. Nor would I want to even substantiate having the capability of doing so, and why in heavens name would I? I am just one person, asking why people have a hard time understanding that not having sex is the answer to stopping sexual diseases. Why is it that ?

Understanding this will not make it so. You can not realistically expect people to understand this and then behavior will follow absolutely and 100%. Your initial post was lamenting the celebration of the vaccine, not asking why everyone doesn't believe as you do, that abstinence will eradicate all STDs. It seems you are arguing that in a perfect world, this vaccine wouldn't be necessary.

Well, this world is not perfect. And I hope that your daughter can grow up free from the pressure to be perfect, because that kind of pressure is not healthy, whether self imposed or religiously indoctrinated.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 06:58 PM
Now you are making it personal, with insinuations that I inflict a 'religious' legality on my children. My turn to get bristled. touche

Religion aside.

it is unknown how long the effects of this vaccine will last and that this vaccine is not a blanket cure for all causes of cervical cancer

Good we got that clearly understood.


Your initial post was lamenting the celebration of the vaccine, not asking why everyone doesn't believe as you do, that abstinence will eradicate all STDs. It seems you are arguing that in a perfect world, this vaccine wouldn't be necessary.

Of course I understand that everyone will not believe as I do that abstinence will eradicate all STDs, why would they, it's only the truth, in a perfect or unperfect world.


By the 'Celebration' of this vaccine in many of the posters responses on this thread it is obvious there has been placed a great deal of hope in this capability, and by the fact that I have been told over and over again that abstinence is in no way a viable option, there really are no other words that I can mutter into the universe to anymore clearly state that, if you don't have unprotected casual sex you won't get STD's.

misstialouise
06-30-2006, 07:04 PM
That's not entirely true.

HIV can be contracted by sharing needles.

Hep B & C can be contracted when travelling overseas without proper precautions to food and water intake, and hygene..

NOT all "STD's" are contracted by having sex. It's just the easiest way to spread them.

Again, you're ignoring the sicko's out there who rape and molest our children, women & men... as much as we'd like to ignore it, THIS is a bigger problem than casual sex.

brendajos
06-30-2006, 07:05 PM
If you could do it, how would you propose we stop everybody in the world from having unprotected sex?

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 07:11 PM
whether self imposed or religiously indoctrinated.

Please note the 'or'.


I guess we differ on this: on whether abstinence will eradicate STDs. My first belief, there will never be absolute abstinence. Second, it doesn't matter if there were absolute abstinence, there will still be STDs - yes, even in the absence of casual sex, even within committed monogamous relationships. Viruses and bacteria are not consequences of immorality, but they are consequences of this world we live in.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 07:11 PM
It's just the easiest way to spread them.
Bingo, takes the biggest chunk of the spreading off right away doesn't it?

and good call about the ignoring the sicko's. I have a tendency to do that.
I don't have access to the figures of those actually infected under such circumstances, it probably is horrific. Even one is horrific, but then any thing associated with preditors such as these is.


If you could do it, how would you propose we stop everybody in the world from having unprotected sex?

People do what they want.
Only through the realization that no, I wouldn't want anyone else ever to have to suffer this disease, and no I won't pass it along, to the next unsuspecting partner.
Do unto others, plain and simple.
One person at a time.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 07:13 PM
Viruses and bacteria are not consequences of immorality, but they are consequences of this world we live in.


Well said.


The stragic placing of your 'or' did not assauge the flavor of your statement.

brendajos
06-30-2006, 07:22 PM
It's just the easiest way to spread them.
Bingo, takes the biggest chunk of the spreading off right away doesn't it?

and good call about the ignoring the sicko's. I have a tendency to do that.
I don't have access to the figures of those actually infected under such circumstances, it probably is horrific. Even one is horrific, but then any thing associated with preditors such as these is.


If you could do it, how would you propose we stop everybody in the world from having unprotected sex?

People do what they want.
Only through the realization that no, I wouldn't want anyone else ever to have to suffer this disease, and no I won't pass it along, to the next unsuspecting partner.
Do unto others, plain and simple.
One person at a time.

The problem with that though is that you do forget the people who have no conscience when it comes to spreading their disease...and unfortunately we can't always avoid them without becoming afraid to leave the house. you also forget that there are people in the world who don't know better who do what comes naturally to them. i am speaking of people who are mentally challenged in one way or another. The only way to deal with these completely is to live in the mythical perfect world that none of us live in (and quite honestly...i have seen pleasantville...it didn't look like much fun to me.)

you also have to remember there are other cultures in the world that don't look at sex in the same way we do, but they still get the diseases.

while your wish is certainly admirable, and if you are on the crusade for having people be more responsible in their behavior the bully to ya...

as for me...i think i will work on an issue that has more chance of succeeding.....world peace? :rollseyes: :wall:

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 07:22 PM
The stragic placing of your 'or' did not assauge the flavor of your statement.

You read too much into it. I meant the 'or'. Pressure to be perfect is not healthy [period] ... no matter where it stems from.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 07:30 PM
Carol~
Your sidestepping


Well, this world is not perfect. And I hope that your daughter can grow up free from the pressure to be perfect, because that kind of pressure is not healthy, whether self imposed or religiously indoctrinated

Read this carefully once more.
If you cannot see the personal barb here, than you seriously need to understand that this passive/aggressive in nature and scent.
I was gracious in regard to a statement I made to you earlier.

Perhaps you could find it in your heart to be the same. Perhaps not.


you do forget the people who have no conscience when it comes to spreading their disease...

Those are the people that I am ignoring the least. The ones who know the are transmitters. They are the culprits for the bulk of it.
You go with the world peace! I'm in your corner. :cheering:

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 08:03 PM
ok - you said that in a perfect world, there would be abstinence from casual sex. I take this to mean abstinence = perfection. Yes, I was saying that I hope your daughter can grow up free from the pressure to be perfect. Morality is not perfection. I didn't say I hope your daughter can grow up immorally. I didn't say you shouldn't instill your morality and your beliefs in your children. Who else could be better than you? I'm so tired of people not doing this and I do think the lack of morality in the home is responsible for many things wrong with people today.

I did take it a step too far. I'm sorry for that. You are advocating temperance. I was trying to be too logical by getting you to say abstinence can only occur in a perfect world. It wasn't meant to take it to a personal attack level - it was to illustrate that to advocate something that can only occur in a perfect world as a substitution for advocating something to fix the here and now (without judgment, as medicine should be without judgment) is unrealistic at best.

I don't think this is a miracle cure. I don't think blanket thoughts that the government is looking out for our best interests. I don't think blanket thoughts that all scientific and medical advances are necessarily 'good'. I don't think we should rush into any so called cure. I am suspicious of the competition between and motivation of pharmaceutical companies. But I applaud this vaccine and its success (so far). I applaud its approval for use. I think this vaccine is a step in the right direction. I think that takes us back to the original purpose of this thread.

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 08:39 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. Well done. Especially since we've had everyone sitting on the edge of their seats. :D

I accept your apology. As a reference for the future, perhaps and this goes for everyone of which I am inclusive, it would be best to forthright admit when they have overstepped the boundries of civil discussion. I think passive/aggresiveness feeds on it, especially when it goes untethered, as you have seen done here, by both myself and my friend Carol. (did I overstep myself there? lol)

Anyway, thank you for explaning so clearly why you have donned an attitude of excitement for this preceived step forward in the progression of ridding all of us of this blight.
But please note that I have said over and over, that I am not so much against this vaccine, nor it's intent. I would that there be no terrible diseases to rob anyone of the joy of life. If a vaccination does it, So be it.
Clearly you can see that all I really would like to see is people being responsible for their own part of continuing the spread.

It does really bother me to think about innoculating innocent young girls, For their own protection. mymy

pressure to be perfect

my kid? ha

KellyK
06-30-2006, 08:52 PM
Especially since we've had everyone sitting on the edge of their seats. :D

Whew! You arent kidding!! :roflhard: :roflhard: :roflhard:

This has been a most interesting thread to read! And, I would like to THANK you ladies for keeping yourselves on THIS side of an argument.

SO many members have expressed awe in the fact that we have NEVER had a "flame fight" on this board. I think I can safely speak for many when I say how PROUD I am of the respect that everyone shows here, even though we all come from such varied backgrounds!

And, here I thought I was gonna have to step in and put up some "caution" tape! :rofling:

:heart: :heart: :heart:

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 08:53 PM
I'd rather they were protected than not. You can't replay the football game. You only get one shot.

I speak from experience.

I think we have definitely agreed that there are a lot of selfish people out there, who take what they can get. I'm just glad there are people who work for the benefit of all (and probably a nice paycheck and a little fame, no?)

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 09:02 PM
Fame and Money
What a motivation. I would think that there are many fine doctors and researchers that have in their heart the desire to help humanity.
Unfortunately~in the case of communicable sexual diseases,
People just do what they want, and frog the consequences.

If ever someone puts a soapbox in front of me. I will stand up and say,

Dudes ~ Dudettes
One thing to remember.
If you wouldn't want someone to do it to you, don't do it to them.
Stick to that. Just that.
Simple

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 09:08 PM
KellyK~
Caution Tape?
:roflhard: oh my, I almost got meself flagged at the knitter board! Oh My

:thumbsup:
Now I have pictures to put up of a shrug I made~ somehow in the midst of this excitement.Ok so there's some extra tension in the bindoff what of it? lol

carollovesyarn
06-30-2006, 09:09 PM
I don't do flame. I came close the other day on another board that shall remain nameless (Hi Sara!), but I realized immediately I broke my cardinal rule, that if pissed, give it 24 hours. I usually see that it's not worth the effort. Here, it was worth it for the increase in awareness and no one got flamey.

Do any of these look familiar? http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060405.html

NinaT
06-30-2006, 10:22 PM
I have to admit I'm afraid of getting in the middle of this. I have been on other boards for other crafts and I have left because I hated all of the turmoil and nastiness. One of the major reasons I have :heart: this forum is because it is always friendly and free of conflict. Yes, I know there are big issues out there. Maybe I am being an ostrich but I don't want to have it here. Yes, I know I can just ignore the thread but this has become something of a trainwreck(or that Hasselhoff thing) (want to look away but just can't). I am all for free expression of speech, but is there any chance we can all agree to disagree and move on?

brendajos
06-30-2006, 10:48 PM
I think they already have.

brendajos
06-30-2006, 10:48 PM
:rofling: oh...and so have i! :rofling:

IndianPrincessSIP
06-30-2006, 11:01 PM
Nina~
This seriously was nothing like a trainwreck.
It was an informative, exploration of an issue that affects everyone.
Lively?
Yes
Life is often lively. But there was no need to feel like it was going to turn into a brawl. Never feel like you shouldn't be on a thread, or read it, and if you have an opinion, say it. There really is no 'humble' opinions. If you have one, it's yours, you don't want to wake up in the middle of the night thinking....Man I shoulda said......

IndianPrincess' don't brawl. Know that, and know it deep.
:D

Brendajos~
You crack me up.

photogirl72
07-20-2006, 07:47 PM
Hey ladies. I just wanted to speak up a little. I have a doctor appointment for myself next week. I am scared and very worried about my health.

You see, at the end of May beginning of June, I found out that my fiance was cheating on me. The girl he was cheating on me with bragged to a friend of hers about her new man. Little did she know that she shared a friend with me. The friend informed me, so I confronted my fiance. It took more than a month for me to finally find out that he was n fact sleeping with her before the last time he and I had been together.

This mutual friend has HPV and has had it since the day she lost her virginity. The girl my fiance was cheating on me with has had three ways with this girl and has shared many men with her. The other woman says she tested negative, but I don't believe her. So, I am going in to be tested.

I wish they had come out with this vaccine years ago. I hope it works better than they think it might. I hope that it will save many lives.

If I have children, they will be vaccinated. If I don't have HPV, as soon as I can be vaccinated, I will do it.

Please protect your children, all we can do is teach them to abstain, but they may not, or someone may hurt then in unspeakable ways. If this vaccine won't hurt anyone, it should be widely used.

Now, if only they could find a way to test men for HPV....

knitncook
07-21-2006, 06:47 PM
Treading gently I hope. I have issues with this vaccine because of its limited studies. It has had such a narrow scope of study and no long term analysis on complications. Sure, it may prevent HPV, but what will it cause in the meantime? I have a son with autism. He was a normal, active, curious, verbal little boy for 2 years. I delayed vaccines with him for many reasons. Shortly after his 2nd birthday I took him in for his first round of vaccines. We only vaccinated for polio and tetnus. Nothing else. Within days his vocabulary decreased, his ability to focus and make eye contact went away and I lost my sweet little boy. The past 6 years have had some very difficult days. I am told constantly that it is antedotal but it happens way too often. I wonder if a quick cure is worth the long term side effects that may come and until someone can guarantee me that it is worth the risk I just can't see injecting my girls with something that may have long term effects.

IndianPrincessSIP
07-21-2006, 08:04 PM
Photogirl72~
My prayer for you is that your test is negative.

I wish they had come out with this vaccine years ago. I hope it works better than they think it might. I hope that it will save many lives
Spoken from one who truly is living this nightmare plague that we are all vulnerable to.



knitncook~

I lost my sweet little boy.

I could go look for the most sincere hugging icon, but it would not be able to convey accurately the heart hug that I am sending to you now.
Vaccines are frightning.
Your story attests even more so, to ere on the side of caution.
Thank you for sharing so that we may understand more clearly.

IP

momwolf
07-22-2006, 02:33 AM
I am tired of the government & pharmaceuticals companies telling us this is gonna kill you and that is gonna kill you.Everytime they tell us not to eat something, 5 years later they say oops guess coffee is good for ya after all :doh: I totally agree with the vaccine causing Autisum.I can't remember exactlly the % but it up like 200%,probably more, since the 80s or 90s.That is way to high in my book!They just want more money so they keep saying it's not the vaccines.Cancer is cancer and we are never gonna get away from it.The only thing they haven't said isn't gonna cause cancer is toilet paper and I'm not to sure about that :roflhard: I vote no on vaccine.Because I just know a few years down the road they're gonna tell us they found something wrong with it or worse yet they won't tell us and just lie about it .Look at the service men who went to war for our country and came back sick from God know what,agent orange,and they tell these poor guys it's in their heads. THIER teeth are falling out and their in pain and can't walk ,their hair is falling out and all the government can say is it's in your head :--- .I don't trust the government or the pharmaceutical companies when it comes to them telling me what I should eat or drink or on any medical issue's say let each person decide for themselves :thumbsup:Kids have enough cancer related stuff lets not add one more.I know,I know it's suppose to stop cancer but do you all really believe that? I don't.But then that's my personal opinion.Thank God I live in the USA so I can have one.And I think you ladies handled yourselves very well :thumbsup: :waving:I'ts 1:30 AM so I hope I didn't rattle on to bad :D

BillSpace
07-22-2006, 09:57 AM
Wading in late on this topic:

I'd like to say a word in favor of teenage sexuality.

I really don't understand why sex, an important part of human behavior, is so totally separated from all other human behaviors. We don't want our children to starve; why should we want them to be non-sexual? Yes, sex is dangerous; so is driving. Yet we allow sixteen-year-olds to get behind the wheel of three-ton killing machines, and we discourage them from getting to second base! Some people are so freaky about sexuality that they discourage even masturbation -- a behavior so near universal and so harmless that it qualifies right up there with eating.

We need to give our kids the tools to make good decisions about sex. Some might choose abstinence, but I don't think that is to be particularly celebrated or condemned. We need to make birth control readily available, we need to vaccinate against (almost certain) disease, we need to keep the experience as safe as possible - and one way to do that is to acknowledge that it happens, not surround it with shame, and encourage communication.

Sex is good, sex is part of human experience; sex shouldn't be fatal, which is what the abstinence-only people, whether they realize it or not, are pushing for. They'd rather women died of cervical cancer than acknowledge that humans have sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

IndianPrincessSIP
07-22-2006, 12:10 PM
You are absolutely right!
What have I been thinking?

If it feels good do it!
Education
Vaccines
Open~ness
When my sixteen year old son walks in Ask the Question! How was the sex tonight son? Yes, o that's nice, good I'm glad you had fun, any change from my twenty? Glad to hear that you are enjoying all the functions of being a human. Gee you even drove the three tons of steel down the road. And you ATE too! What priviledges we have being human!

You ran out of Ecstasy? Damn I thought I snagged enough to last you at least a month! lol. Oh well help yourself to some of your Dad's Viagra, that should make your experience even better!

Wait let me check your pockets. How come there are still three condoms in here? You really really have to start using these son! I know they don't feel as good, but hey, we've had the talk, should I get the video out again?

pshaw

I'd like to say a word in favor of teenage sexuality.


I know about sexuality. Teenage or otherwise. I also know that this society absolutely 'pivots' around it.

But DARE say abstinence. Just dare say it. No we don't want to hear about denying any of those wonderful 'rights'.


What was the government thinking making sex with minors illegal?

KellyK
07-22-2006, 12:21 PM
Wow! This topic has certainly raised some important questions and provoked some very strong feelings.

Many members have commented on their gratitude for this forum in which everyone is respectful of everyone else's differences and opinions. It is this "culture" that sets KH apart from other boards. That, and the fact that we are all generally terrific and good looking.

While off-topic conversations have never been discouraged on KH, the Mods and I have been a little worried that this particular topic has come fairly close to turning into an argument.

I am in no way intending to scold, censor or accuse, I am just proud of what makes KH a real "community" and I hope that we all keep that in mind when posting in response to a "hot" topic. Arguments almost NEVER happen here, so this may seem like a bit of an overreaction and I hope I havent offended anyone. :heart: (Arguments SKEER me! :shifty: )

IndianPrincessSIP
07-22-2006, 12:46 PM
Many members have commented on their gratitude for this forum in which everyone is respectful of everyone else's differences and opinions

When this thread was kicked back up, my first thought was, wow I thought this was a done deal. I thought everyone that had anything to say about it already had.
I realized that there are many that Need to talk about it. Need to tell someone what is happening to them. Need to vent frustration. Need to release the fear, aggrevation.
Hot Topic.
Indeed
In a community of caring individuals, it is obvious that this thread is a balm, for many. A necessary outlet.
I would hope that the owners of this board could see that.
It is not an argument.
It is a discussion regarding an incredibly horrid part of our lives today.
Sexually Transmited Diseases, and how to deal with them.

KellyK
07-22-2006, 01:40 PM
The Mods and I have decided to lock this thread to further comment. We feel strongly about the friendly and respectful environment that has been created by the KH membership, and feel that this thread is leaning a little too close to stepping over that line.

Please know that, as stated above, off-topic discussions are certainly not discouraged here. They are part of what has encouraged the formation of some great friendships via KH. However, in order to support the comfort of the majority of our membership, we needed to step in once in a great while.