It really is about sex

You know how everyone says “oh Jason, you’re being ridiculous” when I say 90% of the time when people talk about abortion, birth control, or anything sex-related they’ll actually upset and whiny about sex someone else is having, not mad about “baby murder” or whatever?

Washington – 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 teen-agers 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.

There you go.

While I think you picked a poor way of offering this information up by mixing it amongst your stupid generalization (I mean, come on) I do think it’s completely ridiculous that these people are putting their fears of underage sex (oh noes!) in front of an actual goddamn vaccination for a deadly disease. “Now that I’ve gotten this vaccination for cervical cancer, I’m going to run right out and fuck every boy in town!” Right. Guess they would rather their child dies from the screwing they’ll do anyway than try to, you know, actually do the right thing.

I remember seeing something on this a couple of weeks or months ago, with a headline calling it a “controversial” vaccine. Thinking that anyone who had a problem with a vaccine that prevented cancer would have to be a complete loonbag, I went searching for opposition to see just what the fuck they were smoking. Admittedly, I didn’t search very hard or long, but the closest I found was proponents vaguely claiming that there was opposition. I couldn’t find any actual opposition to it. So reading this article, and what do I find…

"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.

“There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe,” said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation. (my emp.)

"I’ve talked to some who have said, ‘This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,’ " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding he would probably want his children immunized. (my emp.)

Ok guys, let’s stop beating around the bush, start naming names, and let’s expose these sex hating loonbags that oppose this vaccine. This vaccine has a near 100% effectiveness rate, and people who oppose this need to be outed.

Jason is absolutely correct, and if you don’t like the generalizations he included in his post, get used to it. This single issue regarding HPV vaccinations is going to be stick that just keeps on beating!

Well, you have just beschizza all over this thread with your negativity!

Here’s one:

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.

FRC is James Dobson’s outfit. He’s a major christian-right powerbroker.[/i]

Edit: forgot the explicit opposition line, added.

Whatever it was, it probably got edited out already. Just FYI, I will be wielding the beating stick as happily as Jason. Nothing deserves to be thrashed quite like the notion that sex is worse than cancer.

Uh yeah, by you! Where’s the cojones? I believe it was the lefty namecalling. Next time, I quote!

Really? He’s correct? Back it up. Because all I’m seeing is a giant, retarded generalization that anyone who is anti-abortion just hates the fact that people are having sex. Oh I’m sorry, 90% was the made up number he pulled out of his ass, my mistake. If you can prove it, I’ll rescind my comment. Good luck with that.

Welcome to EDIT land! :lol:

I didn’t say he was correct about the thing you tihnk I did!

If you can prove it, I’ll rescind my comment. Good luck with that.

I’m not interested in proving a point I didn’t make, and I don’t care if you
rescind anything at all. Good luck with that.

EDIT: What I mean by the above (left in, in case it’s being replied to) is that I think that Jason is correct in that this position is bad for the pro-cancer crowd, but not correct in regards to his magical 90% number.

It’s certainly no more than 75%

My brain hurts.

I was exaggerating to make a point, you know. I think the same concern about sex underpinning is why abortion arguments always get around to “but what really angers me is women who use it as birth control!”, as if that’s consistent with a pro-murder position (as pro-lifers say they hold).

Yeah. The fact that some people apparently consider (preventable) death to be an acceptable deterrent against teenage sex… well, it’s sort of disgusting. And by “sort of” I mean “extremely.”

Isn’t adultery generally sex between a married person and someone besides their spouse? How did this get spun out of control to include all premarital sex? I only ask because if there’s really a god, it’s obvious that he intended for us to do a whole lot of fucking.

While the spin on the second paragraph of the actual statement is likely, “It’s boilerplate when talking about medical issues,” I’d like to see a stronger statement of support from FRC. It goes without saying that Bridget Maher should be ostracized for her statement that apparently death is somehow less important than some mythical “license” for sex. I’d certainly like to see the FRC distance themselves from such a statement.

3,700 American women dying each year out of over 10,000 cases of cervical cancer, the majority of which could be prevented by a single shot.

Yeah, opposing that is a real winner of a political position.

Which pharmaceutical company owns the patent on this vaccine? The article says that Merck and Glaxo are producing it, but says nothing about who they are licensing the vaccine design from.

Adultery was the whole reason I wanted to become an adult. One of the few things that was everything that it cracked up to be.

I can’t tell if you’re just being flippant, trolling or really asking, but the idea isn’t that adultery is the ultimate sexual no no, it’s that marriage is sacred. The basic idea is sex is reserved as something special for marriage. That’s the reason adultery is wrong, and the same reason premarital sex is wrong, they’re both just different circumstances that amount to sex outside the marriage of a man and woman. For that matter, if you take it far enough, that’s the basis for homosexuality being wrong as well.