whores deserve to die.
"The WP mentions that a new vaccine against cervical cancer, that could become available as early as next year, has sparked a controversy between health practitioners and conservative groups. The vaccine seems to be almost 100 percent effective in preventing the most serious types of the human papilloma virus that can cause cancer and some want to immunize as many prepubescent girls as possible. Because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, however, some conservatives are concerned that large-scale vaccination among the young could be seen as encouraging premarital sex. " --Slate
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me.
I guess when they find an HIV vaccine they will keep it from people because it promotes promiscuity. What if an STD increased the risk for prostate cancer? Say if you got herpes, your risk of prostate cancer increased by 50%. Would Focus on the Family be up in arms because a herpes vaccine, made mandatory for boys age 13, might "encourage risky sexual behavior in adolescent patients?" I think not. Old white men tend to have each other's backs, and the backs of their sons, too. But their daughters can go to hell if their purity be disturbed.
Not to mention it's just bad public health policy.
I'm outraged that this is even a debate. When did this become okay? When did this kind of dialogue on these issues become accepted and even mandatory? Ridiculous. Fucking ridiculous.
2 Comments:
don't get me wrong, i am all for the wholesale implementation of this vaccine. i would gladly vote to make it mandatory.
however, the social conservatives involved here *could* be even worse. from what i've read, they don't seem to want to block the vaccine from getting approved, or even that they wouldn't want their own daughters to get the vaccine. the only trouble here seems to be the "mandatory" part.
i mention this only because i heard about this issue from a different source before i checked your blog, sai, and *my* first impression (based on the headline, before i read the article) was "i can't believe they're going to try to block the approval of this vaccine." i was relieved to know that isn't the case.
i still disagree with them, though.
it's true that the "nay" voices in this debate aren't as psychotically anti-vaccine as they could be - you're right that their fight is against making the vaccine mandatory rather than making it available. however, my rage wasn't triggered by their actions, but by their reasoning: don't make vaccination mandatory because it'll make girls have more sex. kids will think that sex is expected of them if they get vaccinated against one of many STDs. this mentality, "the more you tell them, the more they'll do," is BAD SCIENCE. it's a new trend in scientific discourse in this country: when there's a bunch of scientific evidence supporting a position you don't like, focus on the ONE study that contradicts the mounds of evidence and say "there's no scientific consensus". it's done on global warming, on harm reduction for drug users, and especially, especially on sex education. the level of debate and conversation can't help but go down in an environment like this, and honestly, it makes me sick.
hey, welcome back, stoops. glad to have you around.
Post a Comment
<< Home