Sunday, June 11, 2006
Dominionism, Sharia, or whatever else you want to call it
Pharmaceutical giants Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are gearing up for a bruising showdown with America's religious right after the US medicines regulator approved a new blockbuster cervical cancer vaccine last week.
Conservative groups, including the influential Family Research Council (FRC), have voiced concerns that immunising young girls against the virus that most regularly causes cervical cancer, Human Papilloma- virus, may lead to sexual promiscuity. "We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it," wrote the FRC in a recent letter to the US government. "Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'."
... - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article755931.ece
So... let me get this straight - either: Prevent many cervical cancers with early vaccination and risk removing a deterring fear later in life, or... let women die to support a claim that cervical cancer is the wrath of God.
How do you think the religious right would feel about a cure for AIDS?
How about a cure for anything that doesn't support their agenda?
Gay marriage? Heavens no.
Interracial marriage? Okay now, but legally forbidden with religious justification until the fifties and sixties.
Evolution? Don't get me started. According to our president, "the jury is still out."
I'm waiting for them to jump on schools for teaching heliocentric models of planetary motion.
Sometimes, I wish the wrath of God was a real thing and not a direct result of the hatred of ignorant men. I could accept an act of God.
Give a moron a microphone, and most people will ignore him.
Hand that same asstard a bible, and he has instant validity.
*(note: I do NOT think all Christians are stupid. I've known many who were brilliant.)
posted by Carl Bryant @ 2:50 PM
Literary Shirts
When, oh WHEN are they gonna develop a vaccine against stupidity?
I took it, and it doesn't work.
Haha!
Interesting information and good points you make. It's a crazy world!
un-fucking-believable
i really thought your link would be a spoof
HELP, my country is being taken over by idiots
Calm down, Carl. It's a free country. These people have as much right to participate in the political process as anyone else. If an idea is false, free and open discussion of that idea is the surest way to make that falseness manifest. The article you cite, by the way, is itself imprescise. We are talking, not about a vaccine against uterine cancer - there is no such thing - but rather a vaccine against certain sexual transmitted diseases, diseases that can increase the likelihood of cervical cancer. The vaccine should be available to anyone who wants it. I have little doubt that it will be, irrespective of objections by certain members of the religious community. Objecting to people for objecting is - dare I say it? - a tad intolerant. And rage always offers poor support to any argument.
I object to anything that merges church and state. I don't consider a concerted effort to impose a flawed religious morality upon our legal system as "an idea being tested." Articles of faith cannot be tested - which is why they should remain in each respective church.
We're talking about an HPV vaccine. HPV is highly contagious and is sometimes transmitted via sexual contact (men never know they carry the virus.) According to the CDC, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection by age 50.
My wife has the virus, and has suffered cervical surgery for precancerous growths. She'll likely suffer another surgery again.
She is now and has always been the least promiscuous and most devout member of the christian laity you'd ever meet. If a simple vaccine delivered in childhood would have spared her the fear and pain, but her parents had "elected" to impose this upon her for whatever reason an unevaluated morality dictates - then I say that would constitute an unconscionable act of misogyny.
I don't consider this an idea to be tested. I consider it a barbarism akin to female circumcision.
Well said Carl.
I have HPV too. The surgeries to stop the pre-cancerous cells are very unpleasant.
Also, isn't Carl just practicing his freedom to object? Why is it okay for the christians to object but not Carl? Aren't you being intolerant Frank? And am I for objecting to your objection of Carl objecting to the Christains objecting?
Lord have mercy, this could go on all day!
A religious debate? Going on all day? Nah. I'll post a few jokes.
Quickly.
Well, Carl, as I've pointed out on my blog a number of times I think history demonstrates that it's a good idea to keep church and state at a healthy distance from each other. (Which doesn't mean I think we ought get into high dudgeon over Nativity scenes or saying 'Merry Christmas.' And I do think we ought to teach the Bible in school, because it's essential to an understanding of English literature.) My point is that in this country people have the right to speak out on behalf of their beliefs and that we have no right to object to their doing so. One also has the right to counter their arguments as effectively as one can. I think the truth tends to come out the more discussion there is. But the discuussion should be accurate and precise. The Independent article you cited was neither entirely accurate nor precise. As I said, I do not doubt that anyone who wants this vaccine will be able to get it. Overheated rhetoric on any side of a debate is a major contributing factor to global warming, I am sure. What we need in this country is to tone it down a bit, learn to be civil, and start reasoning together. None of us has a monopoly on the truth.
I agree, Frank.
I apologize if I've offended your religious sensibilities. It wasn't my intention. I got a bit angry.
This isn't the first time I've seen this argument against the HPV vaccine - it's been circulating for months.
You did not offend either me or my religious sensibilities, Carl, so no apology is needed. We are not so apart on this issue. We both want people who want or need the vaccine to have access to it. And I see no reason to think they will not.
I am simply saying that people who want to object have the right to, and ought not to be denounced as bounders and cads. They may simply be wrong or misguided, and if one has more and more correct information than they do, one should stand up and let it be known.
One of the things this budding codger has come to realize - and it has a distinctly tragic dimension, I admit - is that most people, most of the time, are doing the best they can.