More cruel results from a refusal to think
by Jack GrantI 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 teensBy Rob Stein
The Washington PostUpdated: 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)
This whole argument against this vaccine makes me so frickin’ angry, my head could explode.
I am sick and tired of the small mindedness of some. It shows to me what the value of a woman’s life is to them. They’d rather see them die than the prospect of their being protected.
That whole lot of small minded people… a pox upon them and may they frickin’ rot.
By Boudicca on 11.01.05 17:38
It’s worse than small-minded, it’s not logical! The vaccine merely protects from a single type of STD, leaving many other equally real threats existing. So the ‘reasoning’ is specious, since only one potential threat is prevented.
But your point is spot on, Jack - it’s just stupidity for its own sake.
I swear sometimes - the worse failure of modern ‘civilization’ is that we don’t cull the herd well or often enough.
By Barb on 11.01.05 22:31
Okay - I read through the article… twice. Now mind you - I do believe there are nut jobs out there who think that the vaccination would encourage sexual activity… BUT…
Why are NONE of them directly quoted? (not even Focus on the Family who I thought would be front and center!) Which groups have come right out and said this? Who is speaking? What EXACTLY are they saying? I don’t see a single solitary quote from any of the “accused” groups. The closest we get is that the Family Research Council is monitoring development of the vaccine… okay - is that a bad thing? Everything else is hearsay… these people said “this” those people think “that” and I’m afraid these parents will think “this”…
No - the only quotes in there about the conservative “reaction” appear to be from people who are pushing for the vaccine to become mandantory. Telling scary stories of how “those conservatives” want promiscuous girls to get cervical cancer.
I don’t oppose the vaccine and I DO NOT think it will cause sexual promiscuity… but I DO oppose a poorly written article that is meant to stir up trouble.
It is certainly deftly written and sure to get people’s ire up against “those conservatives” - but until this guy comes up with some sources and directly quotes them with their permission… until he comes up with some organization names - not supposedly repeated concerns of solitary individuals… I’m wondering how much the vaccine makers paid for this nicely worded push to get their product made mandantory!
By Teresa on 11.01.05 22:51
This reminds me of the condoms in high schools controversy. Teens having sex vs pregnant teens / teans with vd, let’s see, which is more of a problem…
By Oorgo on 11.02.05 00:43
OORGO - my point was - that the article looks like a smear job. Guess I didn’t make that clear enough. I hate it when people accuse and don’t back up their story with facts. If the facts are there - and weren’t used - then shame on the reporter. If the facts weren’t there - and the inuendo was intentional - then once again shame on the reporter.
Did I not say at the very beginning I had no problem with the vaccine? Did I ever say that it shouldn’t be given??? The only thing I can deduce from your comment is that I want girls and women to get cervical cancer - show me WHERE I said that!
And how bout that vaccine? What do we know about it - except that people are chatting it up nicely? Do we know any of the side effects? Do we know anything about it at all except what it’s “supposed to do”?
After reading posts about Jack’s father and his reaction to the pain medication - I would think people would learn - there is NO medicine made that comes without some sort of risk. Before we start making something mandantory - we need to know what it’s going to do and the problems it will cause. Giving a blanket immunization to girls for this purpose - without knowing the possible side effects - is a disaster waiting to happen! Has it been tested on young girls? How about young boys? Do you want to find out - just a little too late - that the miracle vaccine causes things like birth defects when girls DO have kids?
As it stands - my objections to this article and its wording and it’s implications - have nothing at all to do with sex.
By Teresa on 11.03.05 00:51