February 1, 2007 6:52 AM
Opponents blast mandatory cancer vaccine for girls
Critics of a bill requiring girls to be vaccinated against cervical cancer are denouncing it as being driven by drug company marketing effort. Proponents say it will save lives. And some religious groups say it will promote sexual activity, reports April M. Washington.
Opponents accused Merck & Co., manufacturer of Gardasil vaccine, of pushing similar legislation across the nation to boost its bottom line."This is a bill by Merck to pad the coffers of its shareholders under the guise of protecting girls," Heidi Hendricks, a parent of a teen daughter, said at a heated public hearing on the measure.
Under Senate Bill 80, about 30,000 middle-school girls in Colorado would be vaccinated against the Human Papilloma Virus, which causes cervical cancer by sexual transmission.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, and Rep. Mike May, R-Parker, would require parents to sign a form if they don't want the vaccine administered to their daughters.
Associated Press reports that Merck has funneled money through a national advocacy group of female lawmakers to promote the vaccine, which costs about $350 for a three-month regimen.
Williams argued that 70 percent of cervical cancer can be prevented if females are immunized against the HPV virus. About 160 cases are diagnosed each year in Colorado, and about 30 percent of those women will die from it, state officials said.
Colorado Right to Life and Father Bill Carmody with the Catholic Dioceses in Colorado Springs blasted the measure, saying it will promote sexual activity."We should not pretend that every young girl is at risk for this disease," said Ed Hanks of Right to Life. "The best way to prevent the disease is to encourage our kids to wait to have sex until marriage."
But Dr. Chris Nyquist, a Denver pediatrician, said middle school is the best time for girls to get the vaccine. "The prime time for girls to get the vaccine is when they are ages 11 and 12. When you think of the cervix of a young girl, there are cells more susceptible to disease."
What do you think? Should the legislature require the vaccination with a parental opt-out? Would it encourage sexual activity among young girls? How worrisome is Merck's role in promoting its vaccine?
February 1, 2007
8:55 AM
Kevin Jones writes:
This bill is like telling parents to get their daughter vaccinated against syphilis. First it is an insult, because it implies their daughter will sleep around. Second, no parent wants to think about their teenybopper knowing someone in the carnal sense. Finally, this vaccine is backed by those captive to the "dogs in heat" theory of human sexuality: get your b*tch her shots, she's going to rut anyway. Those with a loftier view of human nature can hardly encourage that attitude.
Anyone else get the impression that HPV was under-the-radar until this expensive vaccine was developed?
Likely because this particular STD put the lie to the "safe sex" regimen so favored by libertines.
What happens when the same practices that spread HPV start spreading something else that proves as damaging? Are we going to waste even more of our time on health problems that could be ended with a modicum of chastity?
February 1, 2007
9:06 AM
jay writes:
Should the government be allowed to force religious fundamentalists to give their kids vaccinations and other proper medical care like cancer treatments?
February 1, 2007
9:17 AM
Linda Jenkins writes:
A vaccine against any type of cancer is great! HOWEVER, I would not expose either myself or my daughter to a NEW vaccine/drug. I do not trust the FDA. After 5-10 years of testing and there are no problems with the drug/vaccine, then OK. As for the government telling me that I have to vaccinate my daughter, NO WAY. Let Merck and the FDA go find volunteers for their test groups.
AND I also am against advertising drugs on television. Does anyone know who I can contact about this?
February 1, 2007
9:38 AM
JW writes:
Nope, this shouldn't be mandatory.
Let Darwinism do its work.
"MY daughter doesnt NEED this! Shes no harlot! She won't have sex till marriage!"
BTW Linda, its not a vaccine against cancer. It vaccinates against HPV, which is a cancer causing virus. This isnt anything new really. Just another virus vaccine.
February 1, 2007
9:42 AM
jay writes:
lol...yep you got it....not getting vaccinated, not learning proper sex ed and not having access to contraceptives will surely make my teenage children not want to have sex.
February 1, 2007
9:49 AM
Jack writes:
Normally I would not stoop to criticize another blogger, but Kevin at 8:55 is nuts.
This vacine would provide the women coverage throughout her life and is NOT simply a license to begin sexual contact at 12. If you bothered to read what this is about, it simply says the best time to administer this vacine is at 11 or 12. BY the time women hit their mid 20s they probably have been with at least a few partners (sorry Kevin but that's reality). By their 40 it's at least a dozen (assuming they get divorced - which is about 2/3 of the women). And as far as I'm concerned THANK GOD FOR THAT - OR WE ALL WOULD BE PRETTY LONELY. This vacine can help them avoid future problems - there is little to argue with here except the cost. So get off your puritan high horse and consider the womans complete sexual future not just your concern that this might give your teen a sexual license (you don't even have to tell her what it is).
February 1, 2007
9:51 AM
Anonymous writes:
Just some more nannyism by the government in the pockets of ibg business.
February 1, 2007
9:51 AM
David (R) writes:
My two cents worth;
Great vaccine if it does what it claims, and doesn't cause a zillion nasty side-effects like half the crap they advertise on TV.
But, my wife, I, and my daughter will decide on getting it, based on the medical information and personal opinion. It WILL NOT be done because the government said so. Overzealous bastards. And to know that the pharm company is pushing legislation for this really p!sses me off - talk about a vested, impossible-not-to-be-biased effort.
Maybe we should get rid of government, and create a ruling body of corporations - or, is it too late for that idea?
February 1, 2007
9:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
Mandatory vaccinations are justified only for diseases that are transmitted via airborne particles or casual contact, i. e., measles, mumps, chickenpox. Risks that are consciously and voluntarily taken, like the risk of HPV associated with sex, are private health concerns, not public health concerns.
February 1, 2007
10:19 AM
Anonymous writes:
So an AIDS vaccine shouldn't be mandatory for children?
February 1, 2007
10:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
10:19 - it depends. What are the side-effects? Headache, or potential blood-clots? A day of dizziness, or three months of vomiting and 28% chance of death? And the question lingers is whether or not government has the "right" to require it.
February 1, 2007
10:33 AM
Anonymous writes:
There is nothing wrong with offering it, but it should not be set up requiring parents to opt out. All this nanny state nonsense should not be done, but if it is done, it should be strictly opt in.
A so called Republican in Texas wants to fine parents who miss a student teacher conference. Where will it end? Oh yea, we saw exactly where it will end in the Soviet Union.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=172796
Just say no to the nanny state.
February 1, 2007
10:39 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
That was me at 10:33, I dont know why my name got erased.
February 1, 2007
10:40 AM
Obvious writes:
Colorado Right to Life and Father Bill Carmody with the Catholic Dioceses in Colorado Springs blasted the measure, saying it will promote sexual activity. .. I went to school with this guy and if you look up loser in the dictionary you will probably see his picture. The idea that he debates sex in the public forum is mind boggling. One of the biggest idiots I have ever met.
February 1, 2007
11:01 AM
Linda Jenkins writes:
Thanks, JW. I should have worded my comment differently.
February 1, 2007
11:11 AM
Anonymous writes:
Didn't take those Dems long did it?
The party of "we know what's better for you than you do" rears it's ugly, ugly head.
I see our trip down the slippery slope is progressing at a decent pace.
Once we set a precedent that politicians can control our very personal and private lives for the "greater good" there really is no turning back.
February 1, 2007
11:14 AM
JW writes:
"Didn't take those Dems long did it?"
Bill was sponsored by a Democrat AND A REPUBLICAN you partisan hack.
Damn, its right up there too. All you had to do was read.
February 1, 2007
11:20 AM
Anonymous writes:
Tea meet kettle.
This is a progressive idea, not a conservative one. I can't help it if some Republicans have an identity crisis.
February 1, 2007
12:04 PM
Andrew Mimnaugh writes:
Please note: When it comes down to a choice between sex and cancer, Christians side with cancer.
February 1, 2007
1:07 PM
am 760 writes:
No one is forcing you to do this. If you want to opt out you can. If being a Christian you would rather let your daughter die from cervical cancer rather than getting the vacine that's your choice.
If as a Christian you would rather let people suffer instead of support stem cell research thats your choice.
Just don't force me to follow your ignorant view of christianity. Didn't Jesus want to alleviate suffering? How moronic are these right wing evangelicals?
February 1, 2007
1:08 PM
jay writes:
Mandatory???
Not when a drug company is pushing the legislation.
If they are truly concerned with helping women then why don't they take the money they are putting into getting the legislation passed and make the product cheaper?
February 1, 2007
1:52 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Mark,
You might want to check the spelling of the starred word below.
Associated Press reports that Merck has *funned* money through a national advocacy group of female lawmakers to promote the vaccine, which costs about $350 for a three-month regimen.
am760
Jesus did indeed want to alleviate suffering, but He also warned people that they should not continue to sin. When are people going to recognize the evils associated with wanton sex with multiple partners. Actions have real consequences.
John 5:13-15 (New American Standard Bible)
13But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place.
14Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you."
February 1, 2007
1:55 PM
David (R) writes:
B -
Got the blood pressure back down there big fella? Good.
Okay, let's look at it not just from the standpoint of whether or not it's "good" to inhibit the occurance of cancer. I don't think you're going to find anyone on here, or anywhere else, who's going to say that they'll feel cheated if they don't have their bout of cancer in their lifetime.
What it also is about, is whether or not government (or a corporation in this case) has the right to make it MANDATORY. And the corporation is actually sponsoring the legislation to make it MANDATORY.
Setting aside the thought that it might be good for you or your loved ones, do you want the government or a corporation MAKING you do it? I don't. If you do, then that's okay - we simply have differing views on the powers government should retain. But, think about it. What might be next if this is approved?
AM 760 - you're in about the same boat here. Calm down a minute and realize that once the vaccine is available, you can have every female in your life given the shot if you want. But this, like most other things, must be a choice, not something pushed through the government by the pharmco that made it. Additionally, "opting out" of the vaccination process is NOT the easy, nice-nice process that it is made out to be. I'm not going to share personal experience here because it's private and would take many pages to explain. But, some folks here might be able to elaborate on their own experience of opting out if they so choose.
February 1, 2007
1:56 PM
Mark's Fan writes:
Hogar,
In case you didn't check it out, the word in the article was "funneled". Although funned is amusing in itself...
February 1, 2007
2:06 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
My guess was funded, but funnel has some interesting connotations.
February 1, 2007
2:08 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am760
ALERT ALERT ALERT
THIS IS A SARCASTIC POST
How about a law that all liberals can be shot on sight. They can opt out if the want to.
February 1, 2007
2:23 PM
Anonymous writes:
am760
ALERT ALERT ALERT
THIS IS A SARCASTIC POST
How about a law that all liberals can be shot on sight. They can opt out if the want to.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 1, 2007 02:08 PM ..how about a law that stupid people are shot on sight?
February 1, 2007
2:34 PM
Anonymous writes:
B and AM760 ..... how about this? I've got this new 'super food' I made .... and I'm going to get the government to say that eating it is mandatory .... because you know, I made sure that it keeps everyone from becomming fat .... we don't know if there are any ill effects or not because we haven't had time to really test it ... but that's okay because the millions who eat it will be a good test set .... you can opt out of eating it if you don't want it, but you could starve to death if you did that
February 1, 2007
3:41 PM
am 760 writes:
2:34 It's not mandatory and I believe the Food and Drug Adminstration has passed this, so there has been tests on it and it's been proved to cure 70% of types of cervical cancer.
David R, I agree the govenrment should not be able to force you to do something to your body that you don't want to do.
I read an article 2 days ago about how they want to force health care workers to get a flu shot. I'm totally against that, since the 2 years I received the flu shot I got the flu worse than I ever had.
I know studies say it doesn't cause the flu, which I agree. But in my case when I did get the flu it was 10x's worse than when I ever had it before. I have refused to get it since than, and have not gotton the flu since.
If you want to get a flu shot go ahead but don't force me or others too just because I work in the health care field.
The rationale was since health care workers work w/ sick people they should be forced to get it. What is the difference between walking into a hospital or walking into a grocery store or where ever. Your going to be around people where ever you go, so that logic did not hold up for me.
Hogar, you keep praying and going to church for your health and I will keep using science and hospitals, okay.
Didn't you say your dad passed from cancer because he didn't get it treated soon enough. Guess you should have prayed harder rather than take him to a hospital for proper treatment. Im sorry he passed, but don't you see the point. If you can prevent disease and suffering shouldn't you?
Jesus/God knows were all sinners and can't live the perfect life so when we do sin and bad things happen should we not try to correct them. Should we not have doctors, research, science, cures,etc...?
February 1, 2007
3:56 PM
Shell writes:
I understand the sentiment but I'm dog-tired of the government making what should be private decisions for me. I don't care if there is an opt-out clause to this--HPV isn't transmittable like measles or polio or mumps or chicken pox. People can take every precaution and still get those diseases.
You can transmit HPV only one way, and it's easily prevented without a vaccine--that is called Personal Responsibility. Teens, in particular, have a 1 in 4 shot of catching an STD. They get bombarded with these stats practically from birth now--if they still choose to have sex, especially promiscuous, unprotected sex, then I'm sorry, but they know the risks.
I don't know what's worse--a government who takes away personal choice and responsibility in the name of the public good, or citizens who buy into that philosophy. Wake up, folks--do we want to be like Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea? 'Cause we're going the right way for all of it! Just keep letting the government pass these kinds of laws, and we'll be there before you know it!
February 1, 2007
4:14 PM
am 760 writes:
Shell, the gov. is not forcing you to do anything. Its created an option for you and your family.
If you want to pray that your daughter can remain sex free until she marries (pretty unrealistic for most of us sinners) than please do so.
If you want to have her get the vacine just in case, so it protects her from this possible cancer, thats you choice too.
But where you and others get the idea the government is forcing this on you I have no idea. If you want to live in the dark ages please continue, but let the rest of us use progress for our benefit. Thats why were called Progressives not Conservatives.
February 1, 2007
4:32 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Hogar, you keep praying and going to church for your health and I will keep using science and hospitals, okay.
Didn't you say your dad passed from cancer because he didn't get it treated soon enough. Guess you should have prayed harder rather than take him to a hospital for proper treatment. Im sorry he passed, but don't you see the point. If you can prevent disease and suffering shouldn't you?
Jesus/God knows were all sinners and can't live the perfect life so when we do sin and bad things happen should we not try to correct them. Should we not have doctors, research, science, cures,etc...?
Posted by am 760 on February 1, 2007 03:41 PM
My father died because he did not believe in modern medicince. He had never stayed in a hospital until last summer when he was diagnosed. He could have been cured, but his quality of life had already been diminished due to three strokes, so he elected not to have any treatment. I believe that his strokes were caused by taking himself off his high blood pressure medicine because he did not like taking drugs. He was not a Christian and his actions do not reflect my own beliefs about medicince and medications.
I go to the doctors regularly, and take my own health quite seriously. My brother is a Christian and he has a Phd in Medical Bio-Chemistry and has been involved with leading edge research in hereditary diseases. I am all in favor of research, just not in taxpayer funding for that research. I am all in favor of medical treatment, but I also believe that prayer picks up where science and medical knowledge ends. We still don't know it all, but God does.
February 1, 2007
4:38 PM
jay writes:
1:08,
Please don't use my screen name. I don't use yours...
Thanks.
February 1, 2007
5:03 PM
am 760 writes:
Hogar, this is what I believe. God gave us the choice to live a life based on spirituality/nature or on science/technology. When Eve was tempted to eat the apple the choice was made.
Instead of using prayer to heal, now we will have to toil and research etc... to heal. I feel technology/progress has created most diseases/suffering through pollution caused by manufacturing and producing all things.
Native peoples do not or did not have all the diseases civilized man has. And if they were stricken by a disease or ailment, a shaman/medicine man, who was in touch w/ the spirit world/God could bridge that power and heal. That is what Jesus commands us to do, but we are all so far from our natural selfs its damn near impossible to get back to that unless you really devote yourself to it.
I was fortunate enough to attend a Sweat Lodge w/ a Lakota Shaman and personally saw the spirit world in action. I know the Spirit world exists because of this and it has nothing to do w/ being a christian it has to do w/ living like Jesus.
Its is really hard to explain, so I will just recommend 2 books that changed my life and may help you. The first is called "Mutant Message from Down Under" by Marlo Morgan. The 2nd is "The Quest" by Tom Brown Jr.
Go to amazon.com and you can order these 2 books and I hope they help you w/ your spirituality.
Jay and JW I would highly recommend them to you also or anyone on this blog who has an open mind and can think for themselves. I have been selfish not to share them before because I don't feel some people are worthy of this information, but Im just here to help.
February 1, 2007
5:07 PM
jay writes:
760,
I started reading Tom Brown as a child during backpacking trips to shore up my knowledge of backcountry survival. I have nearly all of them. Great suggestion.
February 2, 2007
10:38 AM
am 760 writes:
Jay, have you ever taken any of his classes or similar ones here in Colorado. I've been trying to find someone local, any suggestions.
February 2, 2007
10:46 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am760
Have you ever read any of the Aboriginal responses to Mutant Message from Down Under? The book presents a common theme of isolated perfect human beings. It is a nice thought, but the truth of man's situation is contained in the Bible. We are all sinners in need of a savior.
http://www.aussieinamerica.com/expatriate/mutant.htm
With regard to Brown,
"From this beginning, Brown takes us through a series of personal visions wherein he is transported to the future and sees for himself the horrors that await us. In one account, he visits a city where human limbs hang in shop windows and walking skeletons covered with sores roam the streets. Everything reeks with death and Brown watches as a roving band of armed men hunts down an abandoned child, and without remorse, guts and skins him like an animal. Brown makes it clear that this an America city and not some distant third world nation. "
I will pass on his personal visions.
Jay,
I thought you were a man of science? How do you reconcile Browns mistic view of the future with science?
February 2, 2007
11:43 AM
jay writes:
I've read much of the Koran, all of the bible and many other religious texts Hogar. Doesn't mean I'm a Buddhist. I like Tom's writing, as I mentioned, I originally started reading his books to absorb some of this very good knowledge of backcountry survival....old school stuff that never goes out of style so to speak. His books have gotten away from that over the years...but I still enjoy reading about his take on relationships and finding your own spot in the world...they are entertaining if nothing else. I would hate to stunt my intellectual growth by only exposing myself to one particular take on the world, wouldn't you agree?
760,
I've never taken a class from Brown. There are a lot of orgs in the Front Range that do backcountry nav and survival training. Colorado Mountain Club has a lot of very knowledge members who often put on personalized and custom seminars on a wide variety of subjects.
http://www.cmc.org/education/education_adult.aspx
February 2, 2007
12:12 PM
David Hakala writes:
Here is the language of SB 80:
"NO FEMALE STUDENT WHO IS OVER TWELVE YEARS OF AGE SHALL ATTEND ANY SCHOOL IN THE STATE OF COLORADO ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2008, UNLESS SHE SUBMITS ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE TO THE SCHOOL THAT SHE HAS BEEN VACCINATED FOR HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS OR THAT, AFTER RECEIVING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, THE STUDENT'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN HAS ELECTED
FOR THE STUDENT NOT TO RECEIVE THE VACCINE.
If there's a penalty for not doing something, then it is mandated, forced, coerced, extorted.
Totally unnecessary, outrageously arrogant, and completely unacceptable.
Every sponsor of this bill should be bitchslapped.
February 2, 2007
1:33 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Jay,
I would certainly be more than wiling to take Mr. Brown's advice on backcountry survival, as his experience in that area certainly qualifies him as an expert in that area. I have nothing against looking at what people have to say, but Mr. Browns view of the future holds not weight with me.
February 2, 2007
1:45 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Every sponsor of this bill should be bitchslapped.
Posted by David Hakala on February 2, 2007 12:12 PM
Better yet every freedom loving person person on both sides of the aisle should give the sponsors a career change come election time.
February 2, 2007
2:00 PM
am 760 writes:
Hogar, isn't his vision of the future what Christians would call the Apocolypse? Bush and this adminstration and evangelicals are trying to get us there as fast as possible. And if you are a Christian you must believe that nothing can be done to stop this so why try to save the enviroment or alleviate suffering. Lets speed up the process to hurry the 2nd coming, right? Jesus was a shaman, who had visions Hogar, don't you get it?
Jay, thanks for the link.
February 2, 2007
2:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
am 760, you are always assuming things about Evangelicals. I know many and there are NOT any of us "trying to get us there as fast as possible" We believe in God's word that none of us will know the time or place, we only know it will come to pass.
You should heed the warnings of the Apocalypse, it will be a horrible time to be 'left behind'.
February 2, 2007
2:37 PM
jay writes:
I've always thought that an inability to deal with the finality of life is what drove many to religions believing in the afterlife. I think the apocalyptic tendencies of certain groups is a product of power conceived to take advantage of that inherent need for an everlasting life.
February 2, 2007
3:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
As a requirement for enrollment in public school, this vaccine policy is fallacious in that the public health issue it seeks to address is not a communicable disease through casual contact. This is why it should not be mandated for public schools and minor children. You can't catch HPV the way you get measles, mumps, or chickenpox.
Let parents decide without having to go on record by opting out of this misguided politically-correct policy. What's next for your Paternalistic Government?
February 2, 2007
4:29 PM
jay writes:
David it's not about "improving" lives, it's about protecting them.
February 2, 2007
4:38 PM
David (R) writes:
Jay, are we really going to split hairs between "improve" and "protect"? - lol - it's been a long week I guess.
The only point I am making is that the government has no right forcing people to take a drug, even one that might well offer this protection. If the drug works, and the side-effects are 'acceptable' to a person, then let them get the shot if they want it. If they choose not to, and they contract cancer, then it will be up to them to deal with the treatment, and perhaps their death.
Certainly, nobody who holds the opinion that a mother has the right to choose to keep her unborn child or not, could claim that a person has any less right to choose which meds to take.
February 2, 2007
4:45 PM
jay writes:
What about vaccinations for polio, measles, meninghitis, rabies, etc?
They have side effects in the same league as the HPV vaccine. HPV can be just as deadly as those other diseases...should we allow parents to not vaccinate their children for any diseases if they choose negligence as a parenting method? How about chemotherapy for curable cancers? Should we allow parents to willfully deny their children life saving medicines because they hold the power to make bad decisions on behalf of their kid?
It's an interesting dilemna.
February 2, 2007
5:04 PM
David (R) writes:
Jay - I understand where you're coming from. And I agree that on one hand it seems to be the far nobler and caring position that everyone should do everything they can to eradicate disease in any form.
Who among us would willingly decline a pill or shot that delivered on a promise of long life with no diseases of any kind, and no harmful side-effects, if there was such a thing?
I am, admittedly, very concerned by the funding from the drugs' maker to push passage through the legislature. This goes beyond a simple conflict of interest, and jumps into the realm of a corporate entity using government to require consumption of its product(s) by the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
Setting aside the differences between medication and food for a minute, is it possible that the dairy lobby will one day use the same maneuver to ensure we all drink our milk every day - after all, without it we'll suffer osteoporosis, and many broken hip bones as we age. What about the beef producers? They will want to ensure we have our daily protein intake because without it, our bodies can't build strong tissue that it makes with protein.
That list could go on for quite some time, and I'd be willing to bet that many companies, in many different sectors, are watching closely to see how this issue unfolds.
February 2, 2007
5:20 PM
jay writes:
Actually...yes....the gov't makes parents properly care for their children...including not starving them to death. So...yes...medicines and food are appropriate examples.
February 2, 2007
5:22 PM
David (R) writes:
Here's an interesting (read, "scary") article about the drug:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_he_me/cervical_cancer;
_ylt=An04yBLHgX_5IBzeiMFufVqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
You'll have to copy and paste the link into the address bar using the two pieces above. Sorry.
February 2, 2007
5:29 PM
Anonymous writes:
Unless I missed it I think the point David (R) was trying to make was not that the governemnt makes people feed their kids so they won't starve to death, it was more that someone with a vested interest (the dairy folks) would push THEIR food as the mandated solution .... there are numerous sources of calcium for example, such as dark leafy vegetables .... and it wouldn't be right for the government to push one groups stuff over others or mandate how people eat
February 5, 2007
4:24 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am760
With regard to the Apocalypse , the Apocalypse technically refers to the unveiling of God, and not to the destruction of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse
Christians are nowhere told to hasten the destruction of the world. Indeed we are told to pray that the will of God is done on earth, and that we would be delivered from the evil one. So Christians want the good will of God done, and the bad will of Satan to be thwarted.
The fact that the world will eventually be destroyed is not something to look forward to or to in anyway hasten. That God will eventually bring all things into His submission is a good thing, but one that only He can bring about.