The HPV Vaccine Issue: An ideological contradiction emphasized by Michelle Bachmann

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by thediplomat2.0, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the CNN/Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate, former Texas Governor Rick Perry was scrutinized by Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum over his 2007 executive order that mandates that teenage girls receive the HPV vaccine.

    In case you do not remember this part of the debate, here is a report from the New York Times on the matter:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/u...ccine.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

    One of the interesting things I noticed on Michelle Bachmann's attack towards Rick Perry was that she took up a stance that was pro-choice on a social issue. What is suprising about this stance in the context of conservative principles is that usually, conservatives have stances that are not in favor of choice on social issues, especially when you consider the generalized stance that conservatives have on abortion, which is pro-life and anti-abortion, thus anti-choice. The question that I ask is how is it ideologically consistent to be against choice on a social issue such as abortion, yet pro-choice on an issue such as vaccines? From my perspective, it seems like a contradiction.

    This is not an attack against Michelle Bachmann or a thread supporting Rick Perry, but more of a political science-based thread.
     
  2. frodo

    frodo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,685
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Conservatives are just plain evil.
     
  3. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't consider Conservatives evil, just ideologically, politically, and rhetorical different. I respect what they have to say, although I may not agree with it, and, like all politicians, and political constituents, stretch the truth and play on the concept of political power, which involves emotional and opinion-based manipulation.
     
  4. Blackrook

    Blackrook Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    13,914
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The state has required vaccination of children for at least 100 years.

    Prior to childhood vaccinations, most children did not live to grow up. Look at Lincoln, who had four sons and only one of them lived to adulthood. This was typical for that day.

    People who oppose state mandated vaccinations have no idea how catastrophic that idea is.

    Perry's goal was to prevent women from getting cervical cancer. I think it's ridiculous to attack him on this issue.
     
  5. Blackrook

    Blackrook Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    13,914
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements
     
  6. starbow

    starbow New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,668
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perry may have implimented the HPV vaccine programs clumsily, but he was correct in attempting it.

    Bachmann shows her true hypocritical colors in her attack on Perry at the Tea Party debate. Bachmann tried to present herself as a representative of "mothers" speaking for young girls. That is "identity politics" which should be anathema to a conservative Republican as Bachmann claims to be.
     
  7. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, well in dat case, Uncle Ferd all for it...
    :wink:
    HPV Vaccine Doesn’t Alter Sexual Behavior, Study Finds
    October 15, 2012, Coni Butler, an accountant in Austin, Tex., and a devout Catholic, encourages her three children to remain celibate before marriage. But that did not stop her from getting them vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that raises the risk of some cancers.
     
  8. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd have to agree.
     
  9. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On the other hand, a lot of liberals are anti-choice on things like guns.

    Libertarians are more consistently "pro-choice" on most social issues, although apparently, even a lot of libertarians are pro-life.

    The logic usually behind this is that they are defending the rights of the unborn against the rights of the mother, but the problem with that logic when taken to the extreme is that it requires much more state intervention and ultimately much more government spending.
     
  10. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know a single Republican including some (small in number) Bachman supporters that agreed with what she said. You will also recall that the committed political suicide with that exact statement. If the belief that vaccinations should be voluntary was so prevalent then how come her ratings tanked right after that?

    Also, what the hell does abortion have anything to do with a vaccine? They are completely different topics.

    Libertarians can be either pro-choice or pro-life. The distinction is that unlike liberals and some conservatives we believe that each state should determine if abortion should be legal through the legislature or referendum and not the courts.
     
  11. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Making it a states' rights issue fits with federalism, but there are other small government schools of thought within libertarianism that view abortion more from the perspective of a right.

    Sometimes, federal intervention results in smaller government overall. For example, the federal repeal of Jim Crow laws prevented certain states from maintaining much bigger government.

    By the same token, the more extreme an abortion ban is, the bigger the government of the given area becomes when looking at associated costs (orphanages in particular).
     
  12. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know how anyone can claim it is a right short of a Constitutional amendment. Strictly speaking there is no law except what SCOTUS pulled out of thin air back in '76. It is explicitly stated that any powers not granted to the Federal government in the Constitution are under the purview of the States. I don't know how any Libertarian can read it any other way unless they are just adamantly pro-choice and are throwing out a really awful argument to try and support their view. If it isn't in the Constitution than the Federal government has no business meddling with it.

    Regarding "orphanage costs" I just have a hard time understanding why anyone would try and argue abortion based on cost/benefit analysis. If we are going to go down that road we might as well start sterilizing all poor women because they are a drain on society overall. That is a very dangerous precedent to start. Abortion is and always will be primarily a moral and ethical issue and those types of arguments go beyond just economics and numbers.

    The Jim Crow laws were completely unconstitutional. People are guaranteed in at least two amendments, I think the 5th and 8th......rusty on my amendments, that people are entitled to life, liberty and property (Declaration has pursuit of happiness, Constitution has property) and clearly the Jim Crowe laws violated those rights. In those cases the Federal constitution always supercedes any state laws or regulations. The southern states were in fact violating the law.
     
  13. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't view voluntary sterilization as a bad thing.

    In all seriousness, if we paid a welfare bonus to recipients who agreed to be sterilized, it would save us billions and keep government significantly smaller.
     
  14. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they want to get sterilized then that should be a bonus in and of itself. I don't know how women can go around and talk about how beautiful childbirth is? It's completely disgusting and gross. Aside from the location of the event there is literally no difference between giving birth to a baby versus and alien "baby" bursting through someones chest. :puke:
     
  15. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, there's non-news for ya. :lol:
     
  16. Osiris Faction

    Osiris Faction Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,938
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't get it.

    It's a vaccine against an STD, yes. However, its a vaccine against an STD that raises the risk for and can indeed cause cancer.

    Can anyone really say protecting your child from this is a bad thing?

    Seriously? Yeah, you catch it by having sex. Big whoop. Teenagers are going to have sex. Its just a fact of life. You're not going to stop it. Might as well give them as much real protection as you can.
     
  17. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree 100%. In my other life I was a cytologist and worked with cervical cancer prevention every day. The vaccine was a genuine breakthrough for a nasty disease which seldom shows symptoms until it may be too late-when the cancer has gone invasive. In a country where we have free cervical smear tests, and where women are reminded when their test is due, it is still nevertheless important to be vaccinated. In a country like America where a couple of missed tests might result in a mild dyskariosis rapidly developing into something life-threatening or needing easily preventable major surgery (hysterectomy), this issue of early vaccination is even more critical and far supercedes personal political considerations, in my opinion.
     
  18. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What Liberal scientific nonsense!

    EVERYBODY KNOWS that the ONLY reason 11 yo girls don't screw EVERY BOY and MALE TEACHER in their schools is because they are terrified of getting cervical cancer 30 years later! :roll:


    Please, don't let SCIENCE take over our daily lives!
     

Share This Page