Bill Ware sent me a link to this article about religious right groups opposing vaccinations against sexually transmitted diseases because it might promote sex, and as well all know, sex is evil. Most cases of cervical cancer are caused by Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which is sexually transmitted. Scientists have now developed a vaccine for HPV, which should be approved soon, but naturally the "pro-life" forces are gearing up to oppose:
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV."Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.
The article notes that in the third world, which tends to be even more infected with silly religious superstitions and cultural roadblocks to acceptance, it will be even more difficult to get people to use the vaccinations:
Meanwhile in developing countries, where 80 per cent of deaths from cervical cancer occur, social taboos may be even more powerful. The head of the Indian Council of Medical Research, N. K. Ganguly, says it will take a big educational effort to convince parents. Vaccinating men could be the best way to prevent the spread of HPV among women.HPV is extremely common. Half of all sexually active women between 18 and 22 in the US are infected. Most cases clear up, but sometimes infection persists and can cause cancer decades later...
"We found that some Asian women in Britain are afraid even to get tested for HPV infection, because they say if it is positive they will be killed, never mind that their husbands probably gave it to them," says Szarewski. She feels that such attitudes may mean that HPV vaccination may be a non-starter in such communities.
But remember, the Family Research Council is "pro-life"...I mean, except when they're against policies that would actually save lives. They're so fanatical in their hatred of unapproved sex that they would rather see a million women a year die from cervical cancer than do something about it. Pro-life, my ass.
- Log in to post comments
Dang, I need that irony pipe again.
What is odd is the abject refusal to accept reality---teens and young adults have sex. They will always do so and have always done so. Its nice to pretend but at the end of the day they would be better off paying for the kids getting vaccinated.
Making them scared to have sex, is well, cruel.
I think the term Anti-Sex would be more fitting for these losers.
The Family Research Council also used to be opposed to condoms because they couldn't stop the transmission of HPV. Now they're against the vaccine.
A great case of moral hypocrisy in action.
Bang on. The Christian right has no health agenda, because they don't care about suffering and death. They only care about increasing the rate of adherence to their medieval moral code.
Uber: they demonstrate constantly with their pronouncements on homosexuality, the Christian right seems to believe that if they pretend a problem doesn't exist, it will go away.
Sorry, that should read, if they can get society to pretend something they think is a problem doesn't exist, it will go away.
I say, let's go FURTHER back in history! There's nothing that can't be cured by a good old-fashioned bloodletting! Let's hear it for the fanatical Christian health plan!
On the flip side, there are also therapeutic vaccines in the works for HPV, would would grant people who had been afflicted with the virus a "back-to-regular" sex life. Since God let these people get HPV because he obviously wanted them to have it, how hard will they lobby against that??
Couldn't you also argue that the vaccine was given to man from God? Isn't that at least more logical?
And I have to ask, what exactly is wrong with a regular sex life that makes virginity such a noble enterprise? I don't see it.
Why was the virgin Mary more virtous than a good, honest woman who had sex before? I don't see how sex defiles a person one way or the other. Is this type of thinking not enough by itself to relegate this type of archaic thought of an age where women were mere chattle to the dustbin?
The FRC opposes STD vacinations since this might encourage *sex* Same rational as opposing comprehensive reproductive health education.
It doesn't help to be consistant if you're consistantly wrong. B
Hmmm,
I suppose I would be a member of what you consider the "religious right". I am both pro-life and against premarital sex.
AND and I am for the development of such vaccines as this. What a conundrum.
Now, just for the sake of understanding where some people are coming from (even if I don't necessarily agree in this case), let's talk about WHY some people are against reducing the cost of premarital sex (NOT ALL SEX - see logical fallacy "reductio ad absurdum").
Oversimplified version: Human suffering as a whole is reduced if a few people disobey "the rules" (however you define that) and pay a large cost than if many people are allowed to disobey "the rules" and pay a lesser cost.
That is, if someone who does something stupid DIES as a result, other people won't do it. But if some people get away with it (for a while, at least) and the cost of doing it even when something bad happens if usually relatively low, more people will do it, leading to higher overall numbers of bad consequences, even when the RATE of bad consequences is lower.
Yes, that's oversimplified, and you may well feel that the balance is somewhere other than where the "religious right" feels it is, but most of them are acting with both pure motives and some significant research to back it up.
Example: schools with abstinence based sex-ed have lower levels of STDs and pregnancy.
Now, I'm fairly sure that the rates of STDs and pregnancy are actually HIGHER among those who are sexually active at such schools than their piers at contraceptive sex-ed schools. But the rate AS A WHOLE is lower, because, contrary to common sayings from groups such as yourselves, most teens (and people in general) actually can control themselves. I know, hard to believe.
Now, YMMV, and you may have other studies that show other things, and that's fine. We don't have to agree. But that doesn't mean that I (and several million other people in this country) are stupid and evil and want millions of people to die.
(Well, I put line-breaks in, but they don't seem to be appearing in the preview - I hope they do in the actual post, as I see other people using thm... if not, I apologize for the big block of text.)
Uber: I believe there are several reasons why there is such an emphasis on virginity amoung the fundies.
-During the biblical times women were property of their fathers or husbands if married. Think of it as a rare action figure. If the figurine stays in it's package (still a virgin), it's worth more to a potiental buyer. If taken out of the package (lost virginity), it's value goes down.
-Control. Sexual desire is a natural part of being human and the extremists know if they can have total control on a natural desire, their followers will become miserable and turn to them for help.
-Many fundies have a very rosey view on the ideals of courtly love during the Victorian and medaevil times. This simplified view has convinced them that courtly love is free of complications and potiental heartbreak.
-There was a great line I heard on a local metal station that said fundies need their daily quota of misery. Bonus points if they can inflict it on others.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex..."
Whether as Deoxy would like us to sympathize that there are legitimate theological considerations regarding human sexuality(other than those created by clergy over the last 1800 years to insure a steady supply of faithful), the statement above speaks to a theoretical possibility for which there is no verifiable proof. A vaccine that prevents cancer, which may also protect against a form of an STD, is not in an of itself something that would create potential harm by suggesting sexual license. The only people who believe that are those that would like all of us to believe that they know all the truths and we know none.
Somewhere i have stashed some paragraphs about the relationship of induced pain and suffering as a necessity for approaching the kingdom of heaven. Until i find them ponder this issue in relation to Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ.
And for the record> "Example: schools with abstinence based sex-ed have lower levels of STDs and pregnancy.??" The most recent research on this very issue shows quite clearly that the rates are the same between those who participated in abstinence programs and those who have not. Why? Well part of the problem is that most culturally imprinted teens in the US believe that sex is identified with sexual intercourse while other sexual activity is identified with play or friends with benefits, etc. Also the data from non-abstinence educated European teens indicates that their levels are down across the board, mostly because they have a clearly open policy and cultural related to sexuality. And the nations with the most closed systems, far more restrictive than ours have some of the highest--southeast asia, india, and non-educated africa.
Bridget Maher of the FRC (feel free to make up a fake meaning for that acronym - I certainly will):
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.
You've gotta love the sheer illogical at work, here: we shouldn't give this vaccine to women because - bam! - they'll immediately take it as a legitimization of their marching off to swinger's clubs and porno film companies looking to film new gang-bang videos. Never mind the fact that the HPV vaccine only works on HPV and not other venereal diseases, and that those diseases serve as a reason to remain cautious with regards to sex; for that matter, never mind the fact that there's an underlying assumption here by the FRC that women will slip into an Penthouse-like spell of debauchery just because a vaccine for a sexually spread virus that can cause cervical cancer has been made publically available!
How do these people sleep at night?
Furthermore, understanding their apparent lack of intellect, how do they write this crap?
If people are going to start pulling surveys out of their hats, they should provide links.
I won't do it, because I'm LAY-ZEE.
Chris: How about this for an acronym for FRC: Fucking Retarded Cunts?
'But the rate AS A WHOLE is lower, because, contrary to common sayings from groups such as yourselves, most teens (and people in general) actually can control themselves. I know, hard to believe'
Groups such as ourselves? Back handed slap.
The point is most teens have sex. Most people are not virgins on their wedding night. Most people have quite a few sexual partners in their lifetime. Why? because sex is a normal part of being human.
Most people can control themselves, one need not be a virgin to be under control. Seems to people like Deoxy above that your either a virgin or pornstar. It's sad really.
I'd like to juxtapose two of your comments, Deoxy:
...but most of them are acting with both pure motives and some significant research to back it up.
That is, if someone who does something stupid DIES as a result, other people won't do it. But if some people get away with it (for a while, at least) and the cost of doing it even when something bad happens if usually relatively low, more people will do it, leading to higher overall numbers of bad consequences, even when the RATE of bad consequences is lower.
Pure motives? In what sense of the word "pure" are those motives pure? It seems to me that when a man decides he knows better than his neighbors how everyone ought to act, and he is willing to take actions that will most likely lead to a (mostly) innocent person's death in order to advance his views, he is no purer than the inquisitors or the conquistadors, no matter how many "bad consequences" he stops, or how much he believes in his cause. Even if the bad consequence he stops is a thousand abortions, his hands are still dirty - no amount of good consequences will change that.
As for the Maher quote (I'm not applying the following to you, Deoxy):
I suspect that half the time you hear believers say things like this, it's because they are trying to square what's happening with what they already believe, and are finding it a tight fit. Only the morally retarded (hey, there are some of those on the right) enjoy the prospect of stopping the cure of a terrible disease. A lot of Christians I knew back in the day adopted a sort of "I don't want to force this down your throat, but morality and Christian duty demand that I do" attitude with regard to sexual mores. This may explain the wishy-washy language used by Mz Maher above.
Just a thought.
Deoxy wrote:
I didn't say these people are against all sex, I said "unapproved sex".
You can't imagine how little I care about "pure motives". The fact that they may sincerely believe this is the right thing to do has nothing to do with my objection to it. A Muslim parent in central Africa may well believe sincerely that cutting off their daughter's clitoris is the right thing to do and they may well have "pure motives" of helping their daughter retain her virtue and her virginity, but their actions are still barbaric. As far as significant research to back up the fact that it's better to let a million women die than to take some tiny risk that some of the ones who live might have sex more often....well I'd sure love to see such "research".
Your example is false. I have written extensively on the numerous studies that have shown quite the opposite. Do a search for "abstinence" on the front page of my blog and you will find a dozen posts on the subject with links to several different studies that demonstrate this to be true. Over 90% of those who take "virginity pledges" break those pledges, but because the abstinence only sex education mandates that condoms can't even be mentioned except for failure rates, when they do start having sex they are far more likely to do so without using condoms. This is a recipe for disaster.
As I have noted numerous times, the US is unique in this situation precisely because we don't provide comprehensive sex education, including free and anonymous birth control available in schools. Compared to the nations of Western Europe and Canada, the rate of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortion in the US are double that of any other nation, and a full 7 times higher than in the Netherlands, that alleged den of iniquity and permissiveness. And the rates of those things are also far higher, on average, in the traditionally conservative "red states" than in blue states.
great commentary Ed.
YHE: (T)ouch(e).
As for the rest of this, let me expand on something I wrote in my last comment: it would probably never occur to somebody like Bridget Maher, but there's a very strong stench of misogyny that's wafting off the FRC's Grand Pronouncement concerning the vaccine. And I'm a man, for crying out loud. Is there some sort of Stepford Finishing School where spokeswomen for the religious right are sent in order to be able to present this drivel to the public with a straight face?
Chris: I wouldn't be surprised if there was. (That would make for an interesting In Living Color skit.) Have you ever looked through a Christian teen girl magazine? They treat the readers like they're todlers and have gotten on this new trend that even kissing a guy before marriage is equal to "giving a bit of yourself away" to someone other than your future husband.
Brazil has rejected US funds for Aids because there was a condition that the money not be used to treat prostitutes. Apparently it is possible to stop the spread of Aids without treating the primary carriers of the disease. Who knew.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4513805.stm