And I very quickly became very, very upset at this. What I said over at Peg's was: I was upset nearly to tears over the article in the Strib about this on Sunday. If it was doubts about the safety of the vaccine, I'd have to look at the data, but that's not what these people were saying. It boiled down to, "I wouldn't want to save my daughter's life if it meant she might have sex I disapproved of." Or even, "I wouldn't want to save my daughter's life if she was raped by the wrong person." I very quickly lose the ability to discuss this attitude rationally.
Seriously and in specific now that I have the article in front of me: Debra Blaschko, 47, of Mankato, is quoted as saying, "It's not that my kids can't make a mistake. But I want them to strive for the ideal." So to sum up: it's not that her kids can't make a mistake, it's that they should die if they do. Or if they marry someone who once made a sexual choice she wouldn't approve of. Or...etc. You can think of the situations yourself, I'm sure: all the ways in which the children -- the daughter, as men rarely get cervical cancer -- of Debra Blaschko, 47, of Mankato, could behave exactly as she instructed them and still benefit from this vaccine. And then there's the fact that no kid ever behaves exactly as their parents instructed them, because they are their own people with their own choices.
This is not what we call loving parenting.
At pegkerr's, I chose to use the icon with my dad in it, like I'm doing here, and went on to say: My dad was pretty traditionally daddy-protective when I started dating, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that that protective behavior was -- is -- about my whole person and what he hoped would make me healthy and happy, not about control. I wish every kid could say the same. (The same is true of my mom, except that she wasn't the one who got dating-protective.)