-- Main Page --

1 November 2005 - 18:59 UTC

This might be all-around good advice

by Jack Grant

Luge strategy? Lie flat and try not to die.
   -Carmen Boyle

Technorati Tags: ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

-- Main Page --

1 November 2005 - 15:32 UTC

More cruel results from a refusal to think

by Jack Grant

I was going to include this as an update to my post earlier today “More thinking embedded in amber that results in cruelty” but this merits a separate discussion.

There appear to be people who feel that it is perfectly acceptable to oppose the use of a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer because according to that group it just might (the connection is weak at best, and realistically not present at all) “encourage” sexual activity among teenagers.

Vaccine for cervical cancer sparks debate
Conservative groups fear drug may lead to promiscuity among teens

By Rob Stein
The Washington Post

Updated: 7:15 a.m. ET Oct. 31, 2005

A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

To begin with, I do not know of any way to increase the desire for sex among teenagers, that dial is already pegged at 11 to begin with.

Secondly, which is worse: sex or cancer?

Yes, I know the “conservatives” as they are labeled in the article are merely fighting to keep the vaccine from being made mandatory, but think about it a moment. The connection between this vaccine and sex is weak at best. Can you see a teenager pursuing it any further when they ask, “What is this vaccine for, anyway?” and the response is, “To prevent cervical cancer.”

The statement most likely to be next is, “Oh, that’s a good thing, isn’t it?” and there it would end.

Yet some folks are so hung up on sex (or rather the thought that anyone might actually be having sex) that they are willing to pay a price in preventable cases of cervical cancer to “prevent” sexual activity that, be realistic, is going to happen regardless.

Amber and cruelty. Instead of thinking of the true, cruel costs of their position, they rigidly refuse to think and instead remain embedded in the amber of their reflexive reaction.



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

-- Main Page --

1 November 2005 - 13:13 UTC

More thinking embedded in amber that results in cruelty

by Jack Grant

I am still working on the post that explains exactly what I mean when I categorize something as exemplifying the philosophy held on both the left-wing and right-wing of “amber and cruelty” but am having a difficult time with it.

In the interim, here is another example that shows the cruel side of thinking embedded in amber:

Religious beliefs trump hurricane relief

Danielle Pepe
Last updated on: 10/29/2005 5:06:13 PM

CLEWISTON - Hurricane victims who wanted water had some difficulty finding it at a relief station in Clewiston Friday. The volunteer group running a supply center doesn’t like the company that donated the water, so they decided not to give it to those in line for help.

Twenty-two pallets of the canned water, distributed free by beer company Anheuser-Busch, bears the company’s label - and members of the Southern Baptist Convention refused to hand it out to those in need.

Resident lined up for miles to receive food and water at the distribution point. But the water was left on the sidelines by the Alabama-based group.

“The pastor didn’t want to hand out the Budweiser cans to people and that’s his prerogative and I back him 100-percent,” said SBC volunteer John Cook.

The SBC felt it was inappropriate to give the donation out, and they weren’t happy when NBC2 wanted to know why.

“Why do you want to make that the issue? That’s not the issue. The issue is that we’re here trying to help people,” Cook said.

No one disagrees with that, but the Red Cross says Anheuser-Busch is also trying to help.

The water has been available all along, but the SBC volunteers set it aside and few people knew it was available.

While the SBC is standing its ground, the Red Cross says water is water and they’re now handing out the supplies.

Read the rest at the source, where there is a link to a video as well.

One of the main reasons I support the Salvation Army is that they do not question what you believe when they help you, nor do they question what you believe when you give to them. They try to follow the fundamental teachings of Jesus, especially that embodied in the parable of the good Samaritan.

As I have written before, that lesson often seems lost among those who are usually the loudest in proclaiming their fidelity to the faith.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)