georgesbluegirl

LadyC, check the CDC. Gardasil has in no way been proven to "wear off!" There's just a lack of long term studies since the vaccine was only developed in the last decade. It's also not unsafe.

HPV is an equal opportunity VIRUS, but cervical cancer, the DISEASE associated with HPV, is NOT. Men do not get cervical cancer from HPV, as they lack the necessary anatomy. As for the duration of the vaccination, Gardasil hasn't been around long enough to know its longevity, but signs point to treating it as a once-in-a-lifetime vaccine, like the polio vaccine. 270,000 women died of cervical cancer in 2002. Think twice, then think again.

Okay, a few things: First, the law states that if a family wants to opt out of vaccinating their kids, they can. However, as moonchild put it - why not? The vaccine only works for ages 9-26, and it's better to get it at a younger age. As soon as it's approved for males, I'm sure it will be given to young boys as well. Remember, a female contracts the virus from a male partner (usually), who will show no symptoms. The argument that this vaccine encourages promiscuity or sexual immorality is just silly. As someone else pointed out, you could be infected upon rape, or even from a husband who is unknowingly a carrier. Yes, you have to have sex to be infected with HPV, but since when do we judge that people should be vulnerable or invulnerable to cancer because of their personal choices, right or wrong? Even sons and daughters raised to be chaste may transgress. That doesn't mean that they should not be protected as best they can be. A wife can love a husband who has led a life of sexual excess and reformed, and she should know that she does not run the risk of cervical cancer for it. These are only a couple of examples. On the whole, especially with the option of non-vaccination for families with objections to the vaccine, I can't see how this is anything but a good thing. I'm starting my shots in a month.

I still haven't gotten over Rush's Michael J. Fox thing. Anyway, I feel like what was kind of a ridiculous thing to discuss - Rush being nominated for the Nobel, ha, ha - has turned into a thread hosting the same argument that happens, with renewed vigor, about once a week. At least. Anyone have anything new to say?

I love NPR. And also, I think the Daily Show may be better about news than Rush is...at least as far as I'm concerned. Regardless, the peace prize? Ha. PS: Forrest, I LOVE that John Muir quote. He was the man.

What about compassion? I don't think it's fair to say that acts of good are ONLY either self-serving or serving God. Anybody - Christian, Buddhist, atheist, Hindu, polytheist - can experience and act upon compassion. The compassionate response, especially the immediate one, is pre-reflexive, and doesn't have to involve calculation of its benefits to the self.

Nobody was attacking. The fact is that Catholics are Christians.

Yeah, I think he was trained in Baltimore, or at least had a Baltimore-based trainer? But then again, don't all good horses? It is very sad, though.

Kansas and Iryssa - Why isn't her Catholicism compatible with your Christian faith? You should try going to Mass with her once. You might find something beautiful in the Mass.

Yeah, any conversation you have about religion and faith needs to start with you recognizing her, a Catholic, as a Christian. Period.

Actually, the starting gate incident almost positively had nothing to do with the injury - that would have been a nose injury. He was clipped by another horse (accidentally - it often happens but rarely with such disasterous results) after making a pretty solid start in the race, and broke bones in his back right ankle. The owners were actually amazing in the whole situation; if it had been "all about the money" they probably would have had him "humanely destroyed" (that's what you call euthanization on track) that day or shortly thereafter. The life insurance on him was INCREDIBLE, and they would have cut their losses dramatically. However, they respected and cared for the horse enough to spend millions trying to help him survive (and of course stud....but lest we assume that their motivations were financial just look at the per day residency fee at New Bolton, let alone actual treatment and care). Their actions are actually making it more difficult for other owners who can't afford to care so well for their horses and opt to have seriously injured thoroughbreds euthanized. Now there's sort of a stigma attached to it, more so than there was before (keep in mind that leg injuries in thoroughbreds are often serious or fatal because of the arterial structures of horses and the thin ankles of thoroughbreds).

Well first of all, just because something disrespectful is directed toward you doesn't mean you return fire with fire. Turn the other cheek, remember? It really just brings the level of debate and discussion down to introduce things like this. Secondly, this is a Christian forum and we are expected to act as such, as others have pointed out. Let's make the expectation of respect for all here clear.

It's really disrespectful to post something like this and expect any atheist to want to "rationally discuss" it with you. It's - bottom line - offensive. And, as many have pointed out, inaccurate - atheists believe in horoscopes? Let's be real. I really like having discussions with those with whom I don't necessarily agree on all points, and I don't want to see things like this thread drive smart and interesting people away. I did like this, whoever said it: =)

Well, the traditional response is as follows: man chose to fall, and therefore is responsible for the existence of suffering. However, I'm not sure. I haven't thought about this issue in a while...if God is omniscient, doesn't that mean he created man knowing he/she would fall? Is that the same thing as creating man TO fall? I think it probably all goes back to free will. There's a whole branch of theology and writing - theodicy - that deals with the coexistence of God and evil. I'm interested in your thoughts...this is definitely a subject I'm open on.

I'm from the Baltimore area; I was supposed to be at the Preakness last year, but I was sick at home and couldn't go. When I saw Barbaro break down, I felt like I'd been punched in the gut. My dad called me from the race, audibly upset...it happened right in front of the clubhouse and grandstand, right in front of everybody. I'll never forget the image of Prado leaning into Barbaro so that he could keep weight off his back leg. I still tear up when I think about it, and the people hanging signs of support on the overpasses up 95 to PA as he was taken to the UPenn vet center after the race. I'm still trying to understand all the feelings I had around that time, and around that event - but everything about it left a mark on me. I'm sad to see him go, but I'm thankful for the extremely (maybe unprecedentedly) high level of care his owners provided for him.

Here's some Aquinas for you - I don't think anyone's brought this up, and I've always loved this line of thought. Here goes: The subject line of the thread is correct. God does not exist. Why is this not an atheistic statement? Aquinas posited (correct me if I'm wrong on the details and this was expanded by another, but I believe it was Aquinas who did most of this thinking) that all things exist and have an essence. For example, a tree is the same as a bug because both exist. The reason they are different is because the essence of a tree is to be a tree - leafy, with a trunk, growing - while the bug's essence is to be a bug (p.s. interestingly there is a parallel with this in the Buddhist dialectic, but that's not relevant here I guess!). But what is the essence of God, the force that creates, that defines the essences? God can't be pinned down. The essence of God IS to exist. God doesn't merely exist - God IS existence. Pretty sweet, right?

I can't believe that Northern Ireland hasn't been returned to the Republic yet. This is an issue pretty close to my heart...

There are already around half a million Iraqi dead. We should be trying to protect civilians, to decrease the number of casualties, or else what are we doing there anyway?

Amen. We have the power to affect the way the planet functions, and we have to handle that power responsibly and in a way respectful to nature...Creation.

And what happens when some of the world's poorest who live in low lying areas - think of Bangladesh - have to deal with increased flooding and flood stages?

I think it's cool that women now feel like they have the freedom to choose when to marry, or whether or not to marry at all, without jumping into marriage to conform to what society expects. I think this is a great thing for women, for marriage, and for the United States in general.

I agree - I think it's a good step.

Two words: "Hello, Clarice."

This is why I love college. Nobody to make you take off your pjs for your 8:30!