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

[Flying Crane]

I don't think the message they are -trying- to send is that "sex is dirty, shameful, ect". I think the message they are -trying- to send is that sex in the right context is a good thing, but in the proper context. To me, that is a good message to send our kids.

So, with regard to "honesty with our children", ok, I'm for honesty and not "scaring" kids, but you need to be "honest" about all aspects of things. If you chose to be "honest", don't be selective about what you are honest about. To me, thats equivilent to lying, and just as bad as what you claim the "other side" is doing.

MrH

The "dirty shameful" message may not be the intended message, but I think in many ways, it becomes the message that is sent and received. There is a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of sex when educating young people, and after a while, for a young person who has mostly only heard this side of the story, that is how they begin to understand it. Once this sets in, a tremendous amount of unnecessary guilt and shame can develop in young people who are naturally curious about sex. No matter what adults try to do to dissuade them, young people will become curious about, and eventually experiment with sex. Not all will go as far as others, but it will happen, and I don't think there should be a cloud of guilt surrounding it.

When I suggest full honesty, I do mean that. The negative side of the coin should be fully understod, but so should the positive. And the truth about things like for example, condom success rate should be explained. In many "sex education" classes, students are told that condoms have a failure rate of something like 65%. What they are not told is that when condoms are used properly, their success rate is close to 100%. This is the kind of information that is part of the full picture and should be fully disclosed, but I believe it is often hidden or denied.

At some point in their lives, children will begin to make their own decisions about sex, whether their parents want them to or not. When that happens, they should fully understand all possibilities, so they can make intelligent decisions.

Getting back to the original thread topic: once again, I don't think we can pretend that a vaccine can be blamed for whatever problems exist with teenager's sexuality.

 

[Flying Crane]

We send this type of message to our kids in other ways. As a society, we decide the proper age for someone to apply for a drivers licence. We don't expect 12 year olds to be mature enough to handle driving (or in some cases the length to reach the peddles!). We give our kids allowences (at least if we have the cash and desire), but we don't give them all of our cash at once, because they won't have the maturity at 8 years old to be able to handle it correctly. We restrict mind-altering drugs by law because we understand that regardless of age, they can have bad effects.

I don't think the message we should send our kids is "here is the safe way to have sex, and lets help you not get diseases when you do". As a society, we used to (at least formally) not condone sex outside of marriage. As society has changed, the fundamental reasons for not having sex before marriage has not changed. The consequences on our society for this has been evident: STD's, children out of marriage, rape (yes, I know is not direct correlation, at least for the victim), abortions, divorces and alot of broken hearts/relationships/homes. These things have always existed, but I think I'm safe in saying they have become alot more prevelant.

MrH

With regard to the first paragraph above, I agree, you have some good points, which is that young people need guidance, and they are not allowed to do certain things until they reach a point in their lives thru age or training or other rites of passage when it becomes acceptable to be given these privileges.

With regard to your second paragraph above, again You have some valid points, but these social ills that you list cannot be linked directly or exclusively to sex outside marriage. Yes, we as a society hold sex within marriage to be the ideal, and that is a reasonable thing to teach our children. However, the above list of social ills have many causes. In some instances I am sure sex outside marriage has probably made a contribution, but I think it is over-simplifying the picture to claim that these ills all come directly from sex outside marriage. The truth is that there are many factors involved that lead to these problems. Personally, I think irresponsible runaway capitalism, greed, and our throw-away society have much to do with it. Is sex outside marriage a cause or symptom of these other factors? I don't know, maybe a good topic for another thread, but definitely all part of the bigger picture, and all contributors to societal ills.

 

[Flatlander]

1. The idea that one might feel safer engaging in premarital sex because they are protected through immunization from one sexually transmitted virus is preposterous. There are plenty more where that came from to give one cause to consider.

2. The idea of making this mandatory doesn't sit well with me. However, I would consider anybody who chooses not to as exposing themselves to risk. How can a newlywed woman know that her groom won't transmit this to her?

3. We, as parents, may stress abstinence until we're blue in the face. That doesn't necessarily guarantee the success of our effort now, does it?

4. Do we really believe when providing our children with a high degree of protection against a cancer which kills more than 3700 American women every year, that if we "send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage," this subtle message could possibly unravel 18 years of parental guidance and teachings? Parents, please give yourselves a little more credit.

5. I think that if parents spend more time teaching and loving their children, and place less of this responsibility on the shoulders of society in general, the results will be favourable. Take away the TV, it'll be much more effective in eliminating subtle messages condoning premarital sex.

 

[BrandiJo]

My parents have given me a list a mile long of all the things i should and shouldnt do, i however have chose not to listen to half of them, now say in 10 years i have a child, i know how i handled my parents advice and rules nad what not...im sure gonna want my child protected against anything possible, while sure ill teach her not to have sex before marrage, but should she chose to ignore my wishes or have her own view on it i would atleat want to know shes protected against atleast one desease out there. I dont however think it should be mandatory, nor do i think anything should be mandatory, it should be a choice of the parents.

 

[Andrew Green]

One thing I've always wondered... jeudeo- Christian beliefs say ONE God, and no sex.

If there was the one God, AND a few Goddesses would that rule have been different?



(No offence to the offendable )

 

[Brother John]

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003.

OK....
I'm "religious". (not a term I'd use for myself, but the common connotation generally fits.
I'm conservative. (generally)
...but this stuff is CRAP!!! I can't believe that this man who is a TRAINED medical doctor would not want young women immunized against a prevalent form of cancer just becuase it might send a subtle undercurrent of a message that premarital sex is OK??

LET me tell ya somethin Mr. James Dobson et al...
If your little girl is going to become sexually active because she read something into the immunization shot that she got when she was 9 or ten... if a medication that your doctor gave her can over-ride all the religious up bringing, moral training and lectures that you gave....
THEN SHE WAS GOING TO HAVE SEX ANYWAY.....Period!!

So...let me get this straight. Focus on the Family feels that the threat of a cancer causing venerial disease is a find sexual deterant???
That's Sick.

Dobson's group has done some fine work in putting out family counseling works and advice, most of which is good! Their child rearing material is fine too. THEY NEED TO STAY OUT OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE!!!!!
It's Not their thing!!!! Their social agenda sickens me and makes me embarased that it's people like that that cast the image of what a "right wing Christian" is in the public's eye.

I'd go on with my rant...but I just remembered that my parents got me tetantus shots and boosters as I was growing up....
I need to go step on a rusty nail or something, because obviously...it's expected of me.
Oh yeah...I'm also going to ride my bike....crash...and make sure I fall head-first onto the pavement; it's expected of me!!! They did buy me that helmet after all.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

One thing I've always wondered... jeudeo- Christian beliefs say ONE God, and no sex.

If there was the one God, AND a few Goddesses would that rule have been different?



(No offence to the offendable )

None taken...
But I'll pick up your question and run with it for a jog...

Judeo-Christian beliefs/practices don't say "no sex"...just that it should be exercised (as MUCH as you like) within the bounds of a marriage. I know I'm getting technical here...but LUST of thought and action is FINE for a Christian...as long as it's with ones spouse.

Also: If you really want to get down to brass tax.... the whole anthropomophication of the Deity is silly. When mankind first began to comprehend God (according to our traditions....that'd be like Abraham...etc.) we did so through OUR paradigms...and at that time...that was a male centered society....so they viewed God as a man, and in JudeoChristian scripture Deity even refers to himself in the masculine...but if you think about it "He" must have only done so for our benefit...so we could comprehend.
Technically God would have to be Asexual... having no sex, or ((get your mind around this one)) having 'all sex'.
One of the foundational tenents of the JudeoChristian concept of God is that God is, in everyway, infinite. Therefore you cannot ascribe something to God that has boundaries or distinctions.... Like gender. (here...chew on this)

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (in essence it's saying that the image of God is male AND female)
Also: In the creation story, just one verse previous to this one God said:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

In this verse, in the traditional Hebrew, the exact word used for "God" is "Elohim"... Elohim is the masculine plural of a feminine noun, used as a singular. SO..
God is one
God is Male/Female...
and man (meant here...the race, male and female inclusive) are his express image or likeness.
It's one of the reasons God is often shown, in medieval art, as an hermaphrodite.


I know you were making a funny, but it's something I find VERY interesting.

Your Brother
John

 

[Phoenix44]

I can also refuse vaccinations for my children and it is the right of every parent to refuse vaccination.

That is correct. A parent can refuse vaccinations for their children. However, the parent also must accept the fact that the child may be excluded from public schools for failing to have the required vaccinations.

 

[Phoenix44]

BTW, the idea of a vaccination against cervical cancer encouraging kids to have sex is ludicrous. Most kids have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what relationship there is between their immunizations and anything in their life. I have two teenagers, both honor students, and they have no idea that there is any relationship between their immunizations and sex or any other activity. All they know is that they have to get shots to go to school or college, and that it helps prevent a disease.

What about the Hepatitis B vaccine? Is the religious right protesting that because it encourages sex? In this country, the HepB immunization is given in early childhood, but for the most part is intended to protect against a disease that is relevant in teenagers and adults, specifically because of sexual activity. But I've never heard a teen say, "Hmmm, now that I got the vaccine, I can go out and have some sex!"

And after a disease is essentially eradicated, these kids don't even know what the disease ever was. I had measles, but how many KIDS have ever seen measles?

 

[Makalakumu]

Good Posts Brother John - I'm glad to hear that conservative members our our community think this is pretty bogus also. I'm a little late to discussion, but one thing I would like to add is that some of these FocusontheFamily-like groups are FAR more extreme then anyone ever realized.

 

[7starmantis]

1. The idea that one might feel safer engaging in premarital sex because they are protected through immunization from one sexually transmitted virus is preposterous. There are plenty more where that came from to give one cause to consider.

I agree here completely. In fact I doubt this "disease" is even close to the top of what people think about when considering premarital sex.

2. The idea of making this mandatory doesn't sit well with me. However, I would consider anybody who chooses not to as exposing themselves to risk. How can a newlywed woman know that her groom won't transmit this to her?

Well, you have to look at what "exposing yourself to this risk" means. Refusing the vacination is just not what puts you at risk here. I mean, the risk factor is only introduced through sex. You can't really even say someone who is sexually active who refuses the vacination puts themselves at risk, there are simply more parts to the equation. As far as the newlywed example, this is prime example for testing, communication, and trust in a marriage or relationship. Its not some invisible predator that preys on young virgins. We must not put all our trust in one vacination. There are plenty of other ways to avoid this disease or protect yourself, and there are plenty of ways, outside of refusing this vacination, to put yourself at risk.

3. We, as parents, may stress abstinence until we're blue in the face. That doesn't necessarily guarantee the success of our effort now, does it?

Quite right, but sexual intercourse doesn't necessarily guarantee the acquisition of cervical cancer either.

4. Do we really believe when providing our children with a high degree of protection against a cancer which kills more than 3700 American women every year, that if we "send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage," this subtle message could possibly unravel 18 years of parental guidance and teachings? Parents, please give yourselves a little more credit.

I agree with you here, however I dont think this is the true point. The problem I have is that people are building up this vaccine and tearing down those who oppose it's manditory usage as supporting cervical cancer. Its simply not a true arguement. Opposing this manditory vacination is in no way a support of HPV or cervical cancer. I think the vacinne is great, but its not the only way to protect yourself from cervical cancer or HPV. Building it up as such is disingenuous at best.

5. I think that if parents spend more time teaching and loving their children, and place less of this responsibility on the shoulders of society in general, the results will be favourable. Take away the TV, it'll be much more effective in eliminating subtle messages condoning premarital sex.

I completely agree, however placing responsibilty on the shoulders of society....like relying on a vaccine to protect against STD's?

7sm

 

[Ray]

In fact I doubt this "disease" is even close to the top of what people think about when considering premarital sex.

I can tell you that very little logical consideration of anything took place when I first...

 

[Phoenix44]

Cervical cancer kills over 4000 women per year in the US, and there are about 13,000 new cases every year. So is the argument, "So what? They shouldn't be immunized. They just never should have had sex"?

 

[7starmantis]

Cervical cancer kills over 4000 women per year in the US, and there are about 13,000 new cases every year. So is the argument, "So what? They shouldn't be immunized. They just never should have had sex"?

Not at all. Although it does seem that number keeps growing with every post :wink:
No one is saying people shouldn't get immunized, but that it shouldn't be manditory. Also, your not serious suggesting that the only way to remove the risk of cervical cancer is to not have sex or get this immunization, are you?

7sm

 

[Tgace]

What nobody wants to touch the "my body my choice doesnt apply to kids"/parental consent for abortion conflict?

How can you play both sides of the aisle on that one?

 

[Cryozombie]

What nobody wants to touch the "my body my choice doesnt apply to kids"/parental consent for abortion conflict?

How can you play both sides of the aisle on that one?

Easy.

Ya just look left and right and see wich one is on YOUR side, and only support that.

 

[Marginal]

What nobody wants to touch the "my body my choice doesnt apply to kids"/parental consent for abortion conflict?

How can you play both sides of the aisle on that one?

Not much difference between that and calling folks who defend the constitution unamerican traitors for exercising the 1st amendment.

 

[7starmantis]

Not much difference between that and calling folks who defend the constitution unamerican traitors for exercising the 1st amendment.

:idunno: I'm not sure I understand your point here.

7sm

 

[RandomPhantom700]

*shrug* I've never been a big fan of manditory anything.

Heretic, as somone that sits both sides on many topics, maybe you can answer this for me:

What happened to the argument of "My Body, My choice" the Libs are always preaching...???

:erg:

Uh huh.

Well, we're not talking about getting a tatoo or deciding to have sex, we're talking about contagious viruses. "My body, my choice" is part of the liberal idea of only being personally restricted when your actions cause harm to others, and well, the decision to not vacinate yourself and thereby risk carrying a virus does exactly that.

Unless there's some non-contagious aspect of the virus in question that I've overlooked, but I doubt that.

 

[shesulsa]

"My body, my choice" is part of the liberal idea of only being personally restricted when your actions cause harm to others, and well, the decision to not vacinate yourself and thereby risk carrying a virus does exactly that.

Not necessarily.

So if we're going to limit freedom of the sanctity of one's body and all of us take responsibility for everyone else's well-being and health, then let's ban tobacco and alcohol. Let's ban driving because every time you drive, you risk losing control of your car or being hit by someone else and thus causing harm to others. Where does it end?

How about making it available to those who want it? I think the vaccine should be available for voluntary injectees only.