It's been proven that cervical cancer has a significant connection with unprotected sex and STDs, particularly HPV. So is issuing a drug proven to prevent HPV to school-age girls a way to help them protect themselves from cancer? Or is it, as the Christian Voice in Britain believes, the equivalent to calling all school-age girls promiscuous, in turn suggesting that they are not morally intelligent enough to abstain from sex until marriage?This debate has arisen in the UK in response to a call from a group called Jo's Trust to vaccinate school-age girls against HPV with a drug called Gardasil, which has been shown to protect against HPV 100%. Stephen Green of the Christian Voice has this to say about it:
The message is one of despair, disrespect and low expectations. Anyone giving this drug to a girl is telling her: "I think you are a slag". But it is also irresponsible and will raise promiscuity, teenage pregnancy and, worst of all, infertility. Young women will be thinking they have more protection than they actually have.
What are your thoughts on this? Is a nation-wide vaccination a good idea?
I'm in a stable relationship now but I spent a few years entrenched in the dating scene and though I look somewhat fondly on my days of single freedom, I still shudder at the bad things about dating -- awkward silences, clumsy first kisses, realizing that you have no chemistry and you still have two more courses of conversation to fill. But we still put up with all of this because by nature, we want to find that someone. We know they're out there, somewhere. 
