Hijexx wrote:
One is casual contact, something that is bound to happen in a school when kids are near each other. The other is intimate contact, something that an individual makes a conscious decision to engage in. It generally does NOT happen AT school.

If you're looking for a concession that vaccination of school children isn't just about preventing the spread of disease in the classroom, you can have it.

At the same time, this forced vaccination of children for STD's is yet another assault by someone telling me what's best for me based on their idea of ethics.

Its not about imposing ethics. Its about controlling the spread of a virus.

Thus the Nanny State has to step in and make those decisions for us?

You're back to arguments that have to do with vaccination in general and not this specific vaccine...

However, sex is something the individual has 100% control over.

Thats a straw man. No one chooses to get STDs, and with one exception, the STDs we have today have been a part of human society for a long time. Nearly everybody has sex at some point in their lives. Sex spreads this illness. People rarely make a concious decision to contract it. Its not like they sat down and decided "I'm going to get HPV today." Talking about it as if its something that people have control over is silly.

The only possible interpretation I can reach is that you are advocating sexual abstinence as an alternative to vaccination for STDs. Among a myriad of objections I'd offer that wouldn't be as effective.

What you are expressing is that there is an STD epidemic in schools that adversely affects the learning experience of a majority of children.

No, its simply the mechanism through which we manage public health.

To believe otherwise is to say you want to pre-emptively stamp out STDs just because "It's the right thing to do," not because of any specific need as it pertains to the public school system.

Do you think its wrong for the government to require people who work with food to wash their hands? Isn't it a matter of personal choice? Couldn't you decide not to eat at places that don't have an internal hand washing requirement for their staff? Why not let the free market decide? Who needs to spend tax dollars on restaurant inspectors!?

Automotive insurance and health insurance are completely different from each other.

You are intentionally sidestepping my point. People make all kinds of personal choices that lead to unexpected medical problems that are covered by health insurance. For example, people who climb trees sometimes fall out of them. People who ride bicycles sometimes have accidents.

Therefore, why is it a federal law that insurance companies MUST insure these people? Insurance should be for unexpected illnesses, not planned life events.

I simply don't find your insistance compelling. I don't have a problem with this.

Why do you get angry about the idea that you're funding social insitutions that occaisonally help people?

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls