Vaccine for cervical cancer opposed on moral grounds

Remove all ads!

From http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500

See, this sort of thing is why I have a whole lot of problems with religious extremism. It's utterly baffling.

 

You should have heard the arguments when the first Planned Parenthood was being built in Salt Lake City....

 

Well that is just plain silly. Give it to them as babies like we do mumps, measles, etc.

 

Assuming it's amenable to being administered at that age, I don't see why not. Then again, I'm not an immunologist or pharmacologist.

As the article states, it might be a better idea to vaccinate young men instead. Church groups don't seem to have as great an objection to teenage boys having sex as teenage girls. Not in my experience, at least.

 

I agree with the idea of vaccinating for this at a very young age. The arguments against it stem from moral reasons ("My girl is very virtuous, why vaccinate?"), which, imo, should take a back seat to health issues. Rather than a family feeling shame or indignation, they should be proud of being responsible.

 

[MockIndignation]

Are you seriously suggesting that people place practicality above sanctimony? The INSOLENCE!

[/MockIndignation]

Then again, trying to argue sense and reason with some people is like headbutting a brick wall, and to hell with the fact that it's in the child's/teenager's interests to be vaccinated. I'm glad it's only a fringe element that has such strange priorities unfettered by real-life concerns and a desire to plan ahead for the welfare of their offspring.

 

Again, this comes down to education. Make sure that people know that it is a risk to even a morally clean woman. Vaccination when they are young is simply a precaution.

 

Both boys and girls should be vaccinated at a young age.

Scenario: Jenna is a virtuous young girl, light kissing only, no petting etc. She meets Jodo who sweeps her off her feet and they get married. Unfortunately Jodo was not so virtuous before he met her. Jenna get virus and the potential for cervical cancer. /End Scenario

I see no reason why the burden or blame should always be on woman.

The vaccine should be legal in my opinion.

 

If they try to make this Vaccine illegal I will probably try and raise hell.
On the other hand the simplest method in this case of getting around the crazy conservatives is to offer it but not make the vaccine compulsory. While this may not get the vaccine around in the fastest posible manner, it will get it out and available to those with a brain and a wish for protection.
The other alternative is not try and pass the vaccine off as a cure for cervical cancer, but just for the virus it actually protect from, unfortunatly the best chance of avoiding this fight in this manner is already past.

 

I thought it was legal, but they wanted people to take it before they become sexually active. The controversy would be mainly from public perception.

What is lost on people is that rape could cause this problem too.

 

Well, Bridget Maher, I'd like to see you try to stop the sex drive of a regular teenager. Abstinence is far more difficult than a vaccine.

How the hell would you know her sex life? Plus, what about rape, as Gnarff mentioned? Being virtuous means nothing if you get raped and get the disease anyways.

 

While I generally agree that the vaccine should be availabe, I take issue with your statement, Sabre -- a good parent should be supervising their children enough so that a young teen doesn't HAVE a sex life -- I acknowledge that teens have a high sex drive, but that doesn't mean that they have the God-given right to sex before marriage, which seems to be what some people feel is the logical extension of the sex drive fact.

 

And sex after marriage is going to prevent a woman getting the virus?

From whom is the woman getting the desease?

Believe that and I have a bridge for sale.

 

Key word: Should. Most parents are not going to know exactly what happens at every party that goes on. And a parent that is paranoid not to let their kids go out with their friends, or go to parties generally invokes the child's anger or hate.

Not saying that it is impossible to prevent your children from having sex, but it is quite difficult to do without becoming and overbearing,paranoid parent.

 

There is also the concept of accountability. If the kid has to answer to the parent as to where they are going and what they plan to do, and curfews in place, then there is less likelyhood of such behaviour occurring. Further, if they are caught lying about such things, then parents should have the right to withhold permission to leave the home for a period of time.

 

Human Papilloma Viruses are transmittable without any sexual relations at all. Roughly they infect people the same way as other viruses that cause cancerous growth, warts and the like. So mind your hygiene.

Therefore the vaccination has nothing to do with premarital sex, promiscuity or religious issues.

Unless some religion dictates that viruses and viral diseases are preferrable ( The Church of Loviatar? ).

Of course there are fanatics who want to say that disease is a punishment from God, karmic fate or somesuch, which would mean that your yearly flu is well deserved, not to mention about a Leukemia patient at the age of 3. Talk about divine retribution.

The whole debacle concerning HPV vaccines goes to show how ignorance is NOT bliss, but causes unnecessary suffering. And to think that in some cases finding HPV antibodies from a child has been thought as proof of sexual abuse! That's pretty much the same thing as warts are proof that you're a witch. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I CONDONE CHILDREN'S ABUSE IN ANY KIND.

And let's dish out that point one more time, repeat after me: HPV is not (only) a sexual transmitted virus! Cervical cancer is not proof of any sexual activity at all!

Good, now repeat that a few times over.

 

The article is pretty vague about who objects to this vaccination. Before getting into an uproar about it, perhaps we should know more about those who supposedly oppose it.

Unless, of course, you all just wanted an excuse to vent against religious people.

 

DMC, it is possible for parents to be involved without being tyrants. I've seen it. Admittedly even the best parents sometimes fail, but the argument that parents have no control and so should just accept everything the kids do as fait accompli does not fly with me.


The kids I see who do not get pregnant or drug addicted are the ones whose parents have been doing their damn jobs instead of going out and "finding themselves" in the bar. It has been my experience that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

There is always the problem of rape of all sorts. I've recently read that 25% women in the States have faced a rape attempt and 20% actually been raped.

The stronger people paint the drive, the lass bad they can feel for not bothering to try and control it. It's not a matter of certain parts of the body taking control from the brain, but rather of the brain wanting some candy. Unless people make a conscious decision that they aren't going to wait -- but the stregth of the drive isn't an issue there.

Personally, if I were female in a country where 20% women gets raped, I would get a vaccination for STDs, sure. I don't get the "religious" argument here. It's as if people needed the constant fear of STDs to teach children sexual mores. STDs have never been a factor in my decisions, now that I think about it.

Well, in that case, it takes a real idiot to pull a virtuous argument, as if the fact that it can be acquired sexually overweighed the need to protect from acquiring it through all the other means. Perhaps they should also ban vaccination for any kind of disease which can be transmitted in a sexual way among many others.

That's true. I don't think it's worth it. Some degree certainly, but not anything too elaborate. It quickly becomes a tool of war and then parents and kids start fighting, bargaining... not good.

It's more important to ingrain moral principles than to prevent occasional breaches. It's more important to teach about such principles, what they are for, what they really mean, than just to prevent the child physically from breaking them and think the job is done the moment the child leaves the house (and gets roaring drunk and has wild sex the moment parental control comes to an end, if just to taste the forbidden fruit).

[ November 23, 2005, 21:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]