More religious right hypocrisy - HPV vaccine

The Coffee Shop
1

On the one hand:

HPV, a Bigger Killer, Takes Back Seat to Agenda-Driven Issue of AIDS

…“All we every hear about is AIDS because is politically expedient there are lots of agendas behind it,” Garth says, “but nearly twice as many people died as the result of another sexually transmitted disease known as human papillomavirus , which is the leading contributor to cervical cancer.”

According to Garth, condoms are virtually no protection in preventing the transmission of HPV, which she says people are 20 times more likely to contract than AIDS…

HPV is incurable, and is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States, according to the CDC. There are some 20 million Americans infected with it, and 5.5 million new cases are reported in the U.S. each year.

The ACS website lists “intercourse at an early age,” “having many sexual partners,” and “having unprotected sex at any age” as the types of sexual behavior that increase a woman’s risk of getting HPV. ACS also warns that using condoms is not a guarantee against HPV infection, because the virus can be transmitted from areas of the body not covered by a condom.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/afa/182003d.asp

(linked from the American Family Association website)

On the other hand:

Will cancer vaccine get to all women?

DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.

The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

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…

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500

2

That is truly bizarre. Are they going to oppose an AIDS vaccine next? Why don’t we cut off funding to research all sexually transmitted diseases? Or how about writing a law prohibiting antibiotics use for gonorrhea? Because we wouldn’t want to enable people, would we? And people who get STDs deserve it anyway.

3

Probably you should have included the various other reasons people are against giving the vaccine besides just one Christian group. You should also have included the line that said that the Cancer prevention ability of these vaccines wouldn’t be able to be measured for decades. They don’t even know if it will work.

Me personally, I’m all for vaccinating anyone who wants it. But there are obviously other people besides Christians who are against this or would have trouble implementing it.

4

I’m sure there are issues with the vaccine, as I’m sure there issues with any new vaccine - time is the only test of long term viability.

But the point I think here is that the FRC is opposed purely on religious/“moral” grounds. While I’m sure they’d adopt the ad hoc medical reason, that’s clearly not their interest. It’s pretty clear that they oppose all pre-marital intercourse, and view anything that prevents potential negative outcomes to be morally wrong because it blunts any deterrent effect. And it’s also pretty clear that they strongly believe in a punitive view of the world in that people who experience negative outcomes deserve to do so.

There’s just something so inhumane about that that really irritates me, and others, apparently.

5

Probably you should have included the various other reasons people are against giving the vaccine besides just one Christian group

I’m not aware of them, perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me.

6

“But the point I think here is that the FRC is opposed purely on religious/“moral” grounds.”

Of course they are. They are a religious organizations. what’s wrong with them basing their position on religious grounds?

“It’s pretty clear that they oppose all pre-marital intercourse, and view anything that prevents potential negative outcomes to be morally wrong because it blunts any deterrent effect”

Yep.

“And it’s also pretty clear that they strongly believe in a punitive view of the world in that people who experience negative outcomes deserve to do so”

No, they believe that negative behaviours are rewarded with negative consequences. Do you not believe that is true? Do you think that negative consequences are just bad luck?

“There’s just something so inhumane about that that really irritates me, and others, apparently”

What exactly is inhumane about saying we should teach people how to live better lives instead of putting a band-aid on a problem that might, in fact, encourage poor behaviours to continue?

7

“I’m not aware of them, perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me”

Perhaps you should read the rest of your article instead of just the one small paragraph relating to this one Christian groups opposition.

8

Do you mean these lines?

While vaccination could slash infection rates, its cancer-preventing benefits will not be evident for decades, as it will take that long for vaccinated girls to reach an age when they might otherwise have developed cancer.

Yeah, no shit. So we should just ignore any vaccine that wont give us immediate results?

Meanwhile, millions of women who are already infected must be screened and treated.

OK sure. Is this supposed to be an objection to the vaccine?

If there is widespread resistance to vaccination, it will take even longer for its benefits to become clear.

No kidding. Just like HIV, if the religious right opposes every other form of STD control except abstinence, they are hurting the larger effort to prevent the spread of STDs.

Were there other “objections” you were thinking of?

9

I think my point is more that the FRC and other quasi-religious organizations view of human sexuality is so mired in dogma that it prevents recognition of the basic reality that many of their philosophies simply are not practicable. Denying medical advances to prevent disease on the basis that people shouldn’t be having sex anyway strikes me as a “well now you’ve made your bed now sleep in it” sort of ethic, rather than something a little more enlightened that perhaps recognizes the reality of human beings’ lives and the fact that sex in and of itself is not a pathological behavior. I mean, what happens to people who end up with HPV - Too bad, you’re gonna die, we told you so?

The point here is not that we shouldn’t teach people that negative behaviors have negative consequences. We teach that with smoking, eating fatty foods, driving SUVs, etc. The question is whether you consider pre-marital sex to be an inherently negative behavior. By what you wrote, it appears that you do, although I admit I’m surprised. I mean, I don’t see people all over the world in therapy because pre-marital intercourse has ruined their psyches. You could probably argue there are more people in therapy for the problems that marital sex causes…

I can’t say that I agree that abstaining from sexual behavior, pre-marital or otherwise in the name of only reproductive purposes constitutes “living a better life.” I guess we can agree to disagree. I simply wish that organizations like the FRC would not come out so sancitimoniously to oppose a simple medical advance which would prevent needless suffering and death simply because they can’t acknowledge that people are sexual, whether they like it or not, and that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with that.

10

I don’t see people all over the world in therapy because pre-marital intercourse has ruined their psyches

I’d be willing to bet that many people that are being treated for emotional issues have premarital sex involved as a contributing factor … particularly those that started at the earliest ages.

Granted all of life’s problems are not explained by “premarital sex”, but the esteem problems that start as teenagers and continue through adulthood are contributed to, sometimes very significantly, by premarital sexual behaviors. People go looking for love and self-worth in all the wrong places.

You’d be amazed by how much of a person’s esteem, particularly as teenagers and young adults, is wrapped up in their “sexual prowess” (or lack thereof). Sexual reputations do not always contribute to a positive reputation, neither do they always contribute to a positive or healthy image … even if the front put forth indicates otherwise.

When I think of “prematial sex”, I usually have the same thoughts as I do of teenage drinking, guns, drugs, prescription drugs, etc … “kids playing with things intended for adults”.

I’d also suggest that if women could go back and change things from their past that made them feel poorly about themselves, many would erase some of their sexual partners from their life’s history. Edit: I’d also suggest that many guys would go back and treat their ladies differently than what seemed “cool” at the time.

Premarital sex is not inherently the devil, but it’s not an innocent activity either. Seems with sex, like smoking, people want to do the activity (with consequences known) and then throw a poop fit when the consequences occur. As I said before, immature participants of a mature activity.

Permarital sex plays a role in setting the stage for how people will seek attention and aceptance from others as adults.

simply because they can’t acknowledge that people are sexual, whether they like it or not, and that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with that.

Not anything inherently wrong with that … according to your world view. There are other world views.

As for the church … well, let’s be honest … the church is always going to be ridiculed if they say something other than “aaaaah, go ahead and do whatever feels good.”

I do not oppose sick people, regardless of illness or cause, getting the help & medical attention they require. I did not read enough of the article to see whether or not his is the position the church or religious organization is taking.

11

Well thought post. I agree with it…

12

You make some good points TT… although it might be helpful to differentiate pre-marital sex in high school, pre-marital sex in college, and pre-marital sex post-college. I’d bet you a dollar that the psychological reprecussions of each would be different…

I think there are very real benefits to not have high school kids engaging in sex (I dont see those benefits later in life always though). But one has to realize that there will always be those who engage in sex, no matter if they are exposed to pro-absintence programs or not. The reasoning that getting a HPV vaccine will lead to increased sexual activity seems pretty absurd to me - I highly doubt fear of HPV is stopping people who would otherwise be having sex right now.

13

“Were there other “objections” you were thinking of?”

Read your own article which clearly suggests that other demographics besides “Chrisitan Fundamentalists” are likely to have difficulties implementing a vaccination program. There are other cultures besides your own, in which just giving everyone vaccinations for STDs is not a particularly acceptable idea.

14

“The question is whether you consider pre-marital sex to be an inherently negative behavior. By what you wrote, it appears that you do, although I admit I’m surprised.”

I don’t particularly view it as negative. Maybe “risky” is a better word. However, clearly there are groups who do view premarital sex as a morally negative behaviour, and my point was that there is nothing inhumane about that viewpoint.

As for your points about sex and therapy, I think you are a bit off. The problems that occur to the psyche from marital sex, I would think, are for the same reasons as those that occur from pre-marital sex. Namely, sex outside of a committed relationship. The problems with married people are, in general, sexual infidelity. Just like pre-marital sex, the issue is immature exercise of mature behaviours.

15

You make some good points TT… although it might be helpful to differentiate pre-marital sex in high school, pre-marital sex in college, and pre-marital sex post-college. I’d bet you a dollar that the psychological reprecussions of each would be different…

I would agree. I mentioned premarital sex in high school because as a teacher and coach this is where I am in the most contact with the issue, and from my recolection and world experience teenage years is where premarital sex most often starts.

One could substitute regular alcohol use, drug use, prescription pain killers and/or stimulants, in place of “premarital sex”, and the statement would be equally accurate.

I’m like most people (assumption here) and consider myself lucky that my premarital sexual activities did not result in STD’s, pregnancies, or emotional complexes. Not all are that lucky. I’ve taken a few buddies to clinics to get treatments they did not want their parents to know of, and I know plenty of people (both genders) that misconstrued (and continue to misconstrue) sexual activities as the most effective means of expressing ones feelings toward another.

Obviously, I care for young people a great deal. So much so that I chose a career that might allow me to have a positive impact on their lives. I would love to be able to prevent them from repeating the mistakes that previous generations have made. Among my friends, most of us have birthdays that are (strangely, Heh heh) in the smae year of our parents’ marriage.

I realize that many kids will have premarital sex regardless of consequences (we’ve all been there). Desires coupled with expectations drive them towards it. Still, as a coach, I can never go wrong with advising my young players (14-18), “when in doubt, keep your cock in your hand/pants”. Amazing the situations a pitching coach finds his players asking for advice, isn’t it?

16

I don’t particularly view it as negative. Maybe “risky” is a better word. However, clearly there are groups who do view premarital sex as a morally negative behaviour, and my point was that there is nothing inhumane about that viewpoint.

Doesn’t preventing the development of an HPV vaccine force this morality on those who don’t share it?

If you have religious objections don’t use it, but bear in mind that a woman could contract HPV from marital sex through no fault of her own. Should she not be protected?

17

Where’s the hypocrisy?

18

There are other cultures besides your own, in which just giving everyone vaccinations for STDs is not a particularly acceptable idea.

OK, I have the same feelings about “other cultures besides your own, in which just giving everyone vaccinations for STDs is not a particularly acceptable idea” as I do about Christian Fundamentalists, esp. when the particular STD is 1) highly prevelant, and 2) has serious long-term heath effects.

Better?

19

The hypocristy is the religious right’s pretending for one second to care about people’s health, as in the first article. “Oh, we care about HPV so much but condoms cant stop it!” Until a new, non-abstinence method for preventing HPV comes along, and now the religious right opposes it.

20

Probably you should have included the various other reasons people are against giving the vaccine besides just one Christian group. You should also have included the line that said that the Cancer prevention ability of these vaccines wouldn’t be able to be measured for decades. They don’t even know if it will work.

Or one decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/health/vaccine-has-sharply-reduced-hpv-in-teenage-girls-study-says.html