Religious conservatives oppose cervical cancer vaccine...say it might cause sex.

[Nightingale]

It seems like they're forgetting that you don't actually have to have sex to get HPV. It's highly contageous and has been passed on just by "fooling around." There are many kids with religious backgrounds that do "everything but..." which can still leave them open to diseases like HPV.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It seems like they're forgetting that you don't actually have to have sex to get HPV. It's highly contageous and has been passed on just by "fooling around." There are many kids with religious backgrounds that do "everything but..." which can still leave them open to diseases like HPV.

That's even besides the point. It is not the job of medical researches to determine who "deserves" a given disease for a given behavior. The idea that we should not develop a vaccine for a given illness, because the behavior that results in it we find morally wrong, is criminal.

What's next, we're going to stop doing research for adult onset diabetes and heart disease because many people get those diseases as a result of "gluttony" and laziness? If find the whole concept asinine in the extreme.

What's more, this wouldn't even be an issue if men had consequences for HPV exposure, rather than just being carriers. People always want consequences for "loose behavior" among women. Pathetic.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So the liberals are trying to make flu shots manditory as well?

No, my mistake. I confused the argument against mandatory vaccination as one against the vaccine itself.

However, back to the original point, the entire mandatoriness argument is a smokescreen because that's not the reason the conservative groups are arguing this in the first place. They don't like it because the vaccine prevents an STD; I don't recall mention of any disagreement with the slew of other vaccinations I had to have documented before entering middle and high school. The entire reason they take issue with this vaccine is because it "might encourage sex", and for that they'd see a higher risk of infection occur.

My apologies if I caused the liberal mandatory injection tangent.

 

[7starmantis]

However, back to the original point, the entire mandatoriness argument is a smokescreen because that's not the reason the conservative groups are arguing this in the first place. They don't like it because the vaccine prevents an STD; I don't recall mention of any disagreement with the slew of other vaccinations I had to have documented before entering middle and high school. The entire reason they take issue with this vaccine is because it "might encourage sex", and for that they'd see a higher risk of infection occur.

Actually it is listed as the reason the conservative groups are arguing.

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

So it seems the mandatoriness argument does seem to be the base. Its takes a big assuption based on personal bias to say something like...

They don't like it because the vaccine prevents an STD;

Thats really not what the discussion or article is about. Its specifically the arguement of making the vaccine mandatory. Not allowing a child to start high school without this shot is criminal in my eyes. To refuse a child high school education on the basis of their sexuality is simply the other side of the moral argument. If morals and religious beliefs should be left out of this then the mandatoriness of this vaccine should be droped.

You simply dont have exposure to the other arguemtns of the "slew" of other vacinations. There are plenty of people who oppose other vacinations, however to compare a disease that spreads by airborne pathogens to one that spreads soley by sexual contact is assinine.

I'll state again, to refuse this vacination does not increase your risk for cervical cancer, that is done by other means. There are many ways to prevent HPV beyond this vacination and many ways to aquire HPV aside from not getting this vacination. To setup this one shot as the only way to prevent HPV and thus cervical cancer is heavily disenginuous. Everyone is trying to mold their argument to say that those who oppose mandatory vacinations for HPV are supporting cervical cancer....simply not true. Opposing mandatory vacinations for HPV means nothing about supporting cervical cancer. Read the article again, even these conservative groups are saying this. Lets just look at WHO's risk factors for HPV or any STD....

Having intercourse at an early age, with many partners, or with partners who have had many partners all contribute to cervical cancer risk. HIV infection weakens the immune system and also increases cervical cancer risk. Women who smoke are nearly twice as likely than non-smokers to get cervical cancer.

risk factors for STDs, including unprotected sex and multiple sexual partners

So we can see the risk factors. If we avoid these risk factors we significantly decrease our risk for STD's including HPV. So this vacination isn't the blanket factor to decrease risk of cervical cancer among teenage women that its played up to be. To be used as an important public health tool, great! To be mandated that we must take it....count me out. Oh, ironically this is exactly what the article states the conservative groups are also saying.

7sm

 

[mrhnau]

Lets look at this arguement from a different angle.

I recently read an article regarding lung cancer. they claimed to find a protein that was absent in most lung cancer victims. sorry, don't have the reference handy. The science in this case is irrelevent. let us suppose they find a cure for lung cancer. 100% recovery for everyone. Do you think there would be an increase in smoking? If so, why do you think that would be the case? If so, had they forgotten emphezema (sp)? Had they forgotten diminished lung capacity? nicotine addiction? Bad breath? (hehe)

OK, lets try angle for you non-smokers. suppose they develop some method for you to eat all the food you want and you won't gain weight! Now, do you think people will start eating more food? more junk food? If so, do you think the people forgot about other side effects? clogged arteries, heart attacks, not eating healty foods/balanced diet?

Is the cure for cancer a good thing? sure. Is not gaining excessive weight a good thing? sure. Will it be used as a tool/excuse for some people? I bet it would be. I tend towards optimism, but I also try to be realistic. If you diminish the penalty (cancer, fat), though other penalties still exist (heart attacks, lack of health), some people will tend to be more likely to perform the activity. Same arguements for mandatory seatbelt laws and speed limits. Does a cure for lung cancer "cause" more smoking? Does a cure for fat "cause" more junk food eating? doubtful, but it might help sway someones decision on wether or not to go to McD's or smoke occassionally.

Now, with the previous arguements, someone can have lung cancer w/out smoking, and they can be fat w/out excessive trips to McD. The resultant situation is not so cut and dry. With HPV, the situation is much more cut and dry, its only caused by one or two things. However, people don't like using the same arguements above because its about "sex", and we don't want some religious person telling us to not have premarital sex! This cure will not "cause" sex, but it might incline some people to consider things a bit different. We will go through the same arguements when AIDS cures are found. Same w/ every major STD. Same arguements will be rehashed.

So, end result... is it good the cure was found? sure. Will it increase sexual activity? perhaps. It sure won't -decrease- it. Should it be mandatory? No. will it? Depends on what kind of lunkheads we get in congress.

MrH

 

[arnisador]

Here's a link for the lung cancer story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051108/sc_nm/cancer_dc_3

On a related note (current STD incidence rates):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_he_me/std_cases

 

[sgtmac_46]

Lets look at this arguement from a different angle.

I recently read an article regarding lung cancer. they claimed to find a protein that was absent in most lung cancer victims. sorry, don't have the reference handy. The science in this case is irrelevent. let us suppose they find a cure for lung cancer. 100% recovery for everyone. Do you think there would be an increase in smoking? If so, why do you think that would be the case? If so, had they forgotten emphezema (sp)? Had they forgotten diminished lung capacity? nicotine addiction? Bad breath? (hehe)

OK, lets try angle for you non-smokers. suppose they develop some method for you to eat all the food you want and you won't gain weight! Now, do you think people will start eating more food? more junk food? If so, do you think the people forgot about other side effects? clogged arteries, heart attacks, not eating healty foods/balanced diet?

Is the cure for cancer a good thing? sure. Is not gaining excessive weight a good thing? sure. Will it be used as a tool/excuse for some people? I bet it would be. I tend towards optimism, but I also try to be realistic. If you diminish the penalty (cancer, fat), though other penalties still exist (heart attacks, lack of health), some people will tend to be more likely to perform the activity. Same arguements for mandatory seatbelt laws and speed limits. Does a cure for lung cancer "cause" more smoking? Does a cure for fat "cause" more junk food eating? doubtful, but it might help sway someones decision on wether or not to go to McD's or smoke occassionally.

Now, with the previous arguements, someone can have lung cancer w/out smoking, and they can be fat w/out excessive trips to McD. The resultant situation is not so cut and dry. With HPV, the situation is much more cut and dry, its only caused by one or two things. However, people don't like using the same arguements above because its about "sex", and we don't want some religious person telling us to not have premarital sex! This cure will not "cause" sex, but it might incline some people to consider things a bit different. We will go through the same arguements when AIDS cures are found. Same w/ every major STD. Same arguements will be rehashed.

So, end result... is it good the cure was found? sure. Will it increase sexual activity? perhaps. It sure won't -decrease- it. Should it be mandatory? No. will it? Depends on what kind of lunkheads we get in congress.

MrH

That's all irrelavent. If science suddenly made smoking and eating Big Mac's by the dozen benign, why not do it. Negative side effects are the only reason for not doing so now. There is not any inherent evil, other than negative effects, involved in those activities.

Furthermore, the main reason for not engaging in unprotected sex is pregnancy and STD's. Without either of those two concerns....WHO CARES (other than those that god "told" to care). If God is mad at those who engaged in that behavior, he's more than capable of dealing with them later. It's quite frankly none of our concern.