Last week I did a blog entitled “Yes, I Am Pro-choice.” The topic was that while I applaud the new HPV vaccine, I do not believe it should be “required” to be enrolled in government schools.
Actual liberal comments to the post:
“This is an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically reduce the prevalence of cervical cancer in America”
“The policy of not admitting children without vaccines is not only aimed at preventing infection in elementary school, but its goal is also to create a society full of immune individuals, since so many people go to public schools.
Making it mandatory for admittance into schools is a convenient way of making sure that this disease dies out quickly.”
Today, I read that circumcision could reduce the risk for HIV:
Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.
So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.
Hmm, based on the “typical liberal response” to the HPV Vaccine, does it not make sense to require circumcision prior to enrolling in schools? After all, it would be an “unprecedented opportunity to dramatically reduce the prevalence of” HIV “in America.” Plus, “Making it mandatory for admittance into schools is a convenient way of making sure that this disease dies out quickly.”