• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

More Abstinence Insanity: Religious Groups mobilize against Vaccinations

C

cquark

Golden Member
Cervical cancer kills about 250,000 women a year today and the death toll is expected to increase to a million a year by 2050. However, it's caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV), and we have vaccines that are soon to be approved, so it's not going to be a problem, right?

Wrong. HPV is sexually transmitted, and because of that fact, religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations, claiming that vaccinating against a virus few have ever heard of will induce women to have premarital sex. From http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500
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.
Click to expand...
Opposition in the developing world, where the majority of cases, occurs is expected to be strong too.
 
How to you go from that quote to "religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations"?

Let's examine the quote:

"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."

She's absolutely right. If a vaccine for HPV leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs.
 
Remember when religion was a tool of greater understand, acceptance, and a force for positive social change?

Me neither, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't alone 😉


Actually, in all seriousness, I think religion can be a great thing. The problem is that a lot of religious people are idiots. It doesn't matter what group they belong to, they would pervert the message of that group to justify acting like jackasses. The problem isn't religion, the problem is the idiots.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
How to you go from that quote to "religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations"?

Let's examine the quote:

"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."

She's absolutely right. If a vaccine for HPV leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs.
Click to expand...


Of course she is right; but she is no more right thansaying "if raising taxs leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs." Both are self-fulfilling arguments and inherently can't be wrong.
 
I'm sure if all children could get an HIV vaccination Rip would be against it, claiming an epidemic of gay sex would occur. Which is worse? The Christians seem to know.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Remember when religion was a tool of greater understand, acceptance, and a force for positive social change?

Me neither, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't alone 😉


Actually, in all seriousness, I think religion can be a great thing. The problem is that a lot of religious people are idiots. It doesn't matter what group they belong to, they would pervert the message of that group to justify acting like jackasses. The problem isn't religion, the problem is the idiots.
Click to expand...

Fvking great post man! i love it!
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
How to you go from that quote to "religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations"?

Let's examine the quote:

"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."

She's absolutely right. If a vaccine for HPV leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, for the reason TheSnowman pointed out, but you're also wrong because that's not what she said. She said that giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be harmful because it might make them engage in more premarital sex. What's left unsaid is the implication that preventing premarital sex is more important than preventing HPV. She didn't say promiscous sex, she didn't say other STDs, she just said premarital sex.

Which is the fundamental problem here. I'm in favor of people being smart about sex because of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. That includes using good protections, picking your partners with some care and not having sex with everyone you meet. Obviously I'd be in favor of preventing STDs whenever possible with a vaccination, because that makes ALL sex that much safer. Arguably waiting for marriage is a good method of having safe sex, I can certainly support people who do that. But it's not the only method, and I support the goal of making sex "safe", whatever the method.

Contrast this with another group, people who are against premarital sex in general. It's not that they want to control STDs or pregnancy, they just think there is something "wrong" with sex before marriage. From their point of view, STDs are actually a good thing since they discourage people from having sex casually. Curing STDs, or even preventing them, isn't in their best interest, since they don't care about SAFE sex, they care about NO sex.

This is why these discussions never go anywhere, I'm in favor of abstaining as a means of safe sex (along with the other means), while other people are in favor of it as a goal itself. We can't get anywhere because we don't have the same goals.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Riprorin
How to you go from that quote to "religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations"?

Let's examine the quote:

"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."

She's absolutely right. If a vaccine for HPV leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, for the reason TheSnowman pointed out, but you're also wrong because that's not what she said. She said that giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be harmful because it might make them engage in more premarital sex. What's left unsaid is the implication that preventing premarital sex is more important than preventing HPV. She didn't say promiscous sex, she didn't say other STDs, she just said premarital sex.

Which is the fundamental problem here. I'm in favor of people being smart about sex because of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. That includes using good protections, picking your partners with some care and not having sex with everyone you meet. Obviously I'd be in favor of preventing STDs whenever possible with a vaccination, because that makes ALL sex that much safer. Arguably waiting for marriage is a good method of having safe sex, I can certainly support people who do that. But it's not the only method, and I support the goal of making sex "safe", whatever the method.

Contrast this with another group, people who are against premarital sex in general. It's not that they want to control STDs or pregnancy, they just think there is something "wrong" with sex before marriage. From their point of view, STDs are actually a good thing since they discourage people from having sex casually. Curing STDs, or even preventing them, isn't in their best interest, since they don't care about SAFE sex, they care about NO sex.

This is why these discussions never go anywhere, I'm in favor of abstaining as a means of safe sex (along with the other means), while other people are in favor of it as a goal itself. We can't get anywhere because we don't have the same goals.
Click to expand...
Glad someone else realizes the fundamental difference in preferred outcomes.
 
Originally posted by: KirbsAw
Why don't we just get rid of vaccines all together, if god didn't want you to get polio or smallpox then you wouldn't! :roll:
Click to expand...

On a similar note I just wish religious nuts would stop meddling in other people's science and put their money where their arses are and live with faith alone. They shouldn't benefit from science if they are going to attack it all the time.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Gaard
Rip, are you for or against giving the HPV vaccine to young women?
Click to expand...

There is no HPV vaccine.
Click to expand...

There are two HPV vaccines.

One is produced by Merck, the other by GlaxoSmithKline. Both have already been tested in trials of over 1000 women observed for a period of 3-4 years.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
How to you go from that quote to "religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations"?

Let's examine the quote:

"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."

She's absolutely right. If a vaccine for HPV leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs.
Click to expand...

More proof positive the Religious Zealots are totally insane.

They would rather see people die from a natural part of life than acknowledge their beliefs are off the wall.

:| :thumbsdown: :cookie:
 
to be fair not all religions demonize sex as the bane of puritan penance,
the hindu tantrics, some mahayana buddhists, the taoist, all had more liberal visions of sexuality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top