1
   

more culture of life hypocrisy

 
 
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 12:00 pm
Quote:
Will cancer vaccine get to all women?
18 April 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Debora MacKenzie

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.



Anyone still belive that the religious right is the culture of life?

Apparently only when it serves their specific religious beliefs, otherwise their more than happy to err on the side of death.


full article
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,594 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2005 06:18 pm
What is wrong with teaching abstinence? Isn't it true that no sex prevents the spread of STD's? I guess that is why they are called STD (sexually transmitted diseaes).

The youth of today are bombarded with sexual images and it is no wonder that many of them are having sex at younger ages. No one is telling them the cold hard facts of what happens. Hollywood and MTV are the main prevairs of the "sex is good for you no matter what age you are. If it feels good then lets do it in the street.

While I think it would be a good idea to have this shot take place I also understand where the other people are coming from. I think we should have an offering of the shot at the time the girl starts looking to get birth control. You could kill 2 birds with one stone.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2005 08:36 pm
The problem is not teaching abstinence (nice strawman, there). The problem is teaching only abstinence.

Baldimo wrote:
No one is telling them the cold hard facts of what happens.

Exactly. Have you seen the reports of how abstinence only programs slant information? Have you seen the reports of what happens to those in the abstinence only programs when they start having sex? STD rates higher than the general population.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2005 09:20 pm
DrewDad wrote:
The problem is not teaching abstinence (nice strawman, there). The problem is teaching only abstinence.

Baldimo wrote:
No one is telling them the cold hard facts of what happens.

Exactly. Have you seen the reports of how abstinence only programs slant information? Have you seen the reports of what happens to those in the abstinence only programs when they start having sex? STD rates higher than the general population.


Are you going to deny that abstinence doesn't work?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2005 09:27 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Are you going to deny that abstinence doesn't work?

Are you going to claim that abstinence-only programs do work?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2005 10:38 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Are you going to deny that abstinence doesn't work?

Are you going to claim that abstinence-only programs do work?


It could be in the way in which they are taught. Abstinence does work, how women have gotten pregnant from not having sex? In history there could have been only one but that depends on your beliefs.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 01:15 am
although it's been a while since i was a teenager ( thank god. Laughing ), as i remember there were only two things on the mind of nearly every other teen i knew;

1) sex

2) how to get it.

if it's the idea that teens are looking to get it on is what's bothering people, forget it. nothing new there at all. also not new is the parental sermons about doing it. teenagers are by nature rebellious.

if it's that they may contract a harmful or deadly disease... well, then by all means rather than spinning out some pretty unrealistic sermons about abstinance to the mass of raging hormones called a "teenager", the honest and responsible thing to do is to allow the teaching of what sex is, how it works, how to engage safely and most importantly, to take responsibility for acting on the impulse.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 06:25 am
Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Are you going to deny that abstinence doesn't work?

Are you going to claim that abstinence-only programs do work?


It could be in the way in which they are taught. Abstinence does work, how women have gotten pregnant from not having sex? In history there could have been only one but that depends on your beliefs.

Let me know when you find an abstinence-only program that actually reduces the rates of STDs and pregnancy in the participants.

Meanwhile, abstinence plus condom programs have a proven track record of actually reducing pregnancy and STDs rates.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 06:27 am
Abstinence works, damn it . . . i'm sick of this liberal whining . . .


Now, for my next trick, i intend to sweep the sea back from the shore . . . hand me that broom, will you?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 07:25 am
Well, I'm a bit conflicted on this one. Personally, I think relying on abstinence only to keep our children healthy is like thinking that prayer can cure cancer. However, I'm really sick of all the freakin' shots my kids have to get. Some of them, like the one we're talking about, are given to them because someday they MIGHT be at risk as adults. That's a little bit too remote for me to justify injecting more crap into my kids' bodies. And I'm quite sure that if the pharmaceutical companies get their way, they will start requiring it for admission to school -- meaning I'll be forced to vaccinate my kids for this whether I agree with it or not.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 07:41 am
Baldimo wrote:

The youth of today are bombarded with sexual images and it is no wonder that many of them are having sex at younger ages. No one is telling them the cold hard facts of what happens. Hollywood and MTV are the main prevairs of the "sex is good for you no matter what age you are. If it feels good then lets do it in the street.


The realities of sex have obviously been clouded for you.
Religious groups have been telling us for centuries that "sexual relations are to be XYZ, and done only under conditions XYZ."
Sex is good and sex feels good, in spite of the myths put forth by those claiming it's bad for you, inappropriate, evil, or what have you.

You're right, no one does tell them the "cold hard facts" about sex.
Mind stating what those are? Would it include any conditions under which teens could engage in sexual activity with one another?...that it isn't an inherent evil, that if practised safely, it can be enjoyed by two consenting individuals, that every negative outcome of sexual intercourse and activity is preventable--and not solely by abstinence?
The cold hard facts that you speak about can be delivered to this target group. But they need to be balanced and they need to be fair.

Although I don't condone pre-teen and teenage sexual activity, I hagree with Drew on this one--the cold hard facts on the topic of sex and sex education have been skewed.
Kids aren't dumb. They see through the lies and parental bullshit and continue practicing unsafe activities...even if we take the evil TV away from them.
IMO, they are answering calls that genetics and human history has given them, not MTV.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 07:50 am
Baldimo wrote:
Are you going to deny that abstinence doesn't work?
Shocked
Just got around to re-reading this... No. I will not deny that abstinence does not work. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 11:58 am
candidone1 wrote:
IMO, they are answering calls that genetics and human history has given them, not MTV.


i agree with you. it's called "the sex urge" for a reason.

here's something that i find interesting. many? most? all? of the proponents of the abstinance only pov, it would seem, are also proponents of creationism (or it's new spin, intelligent design...) over evolution. i.e., god created the heavens (which i tend to agree with) and the earth (isn't that covered under the heading, "heavens"?), along with the instantaneous appearance of adam, then eve. so every thing and every being would then be a work of god. every aspect of the human being would then be the condition intended by god. including the sexual urge. yes? no?

as we know, the "naughtiness" of sex is a fairly recent development in the history of man. only a few hundred years, really. but if we want to be liberal about it, we could for the sake of argument say, 1500 to 2000 years. still, a relative drop in the bucket of mankind's existence.

very often i have heard this explained by the philosophy that, unlike animals, man has "risen above" the beastial urges and walks a higher plane. the mind has grown sufficently to control the natural urges of the body...

isn't that type of concept commonly evolving, or evolution ?


either way, when all else fails, blame it on rock 'n roll. or hollywood...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 12:06 pm
Blame it on the Basa Nova
The dance of love . . .
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 12:35 pm
Setanta wrote:
Blame it on the Basa Nova
The dance of love . . .


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 06:01 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
IMO, they are answering calls that genetics and human history has given them, not MTV.


i agree with you. it's called "the sex urge" for a reason.

here's something that i find interesting. many? most? all? of the proponents of the abstinance only pov, it would seem, are also proponents of creationism (or it's new spin, intelligent design...) over evolution. i.e., god created the heavens (which i tend to agree with) and the earth (isn't that covered under the heading, "heavens"?), along with the instantaneous appearance of adam, then eve. so every thing and every being would then be a work of god. every aspect of the human being would then be the condition intended by god. including the sexual urge. yes? no?

as we know, the "naughtiness" of sex is a fairly recent development in the history of man. only a few hundred years, really. but if we want to be liberal about it, we could for the sake of argument say, 1500 to 2000 years. still, a relative drop in the bucket of mankind's existence.

very often i have heard this explained by the philosophy that, unlike animals, man has "risen above" the beastial urges and walks a higher plane. the mind has grown sufficently to control the natural urges of the body...

isn't that type of concept commonly evolving, or evolution ?


either way, when all else fails, blame it on rock 'n roll. or hollywood...


You don't think this "sexual revolution" that has taken place in the last 30 or 40 years hasn't had an effect on the youth? Sure the times when my parents were young were a little prude but when my son can pull WebPages off the Internet dealing with "butt love" then there is a limit that has been surpassed. The sexual innocence that I enjoyed as a child is being lost on the youth of today. When children the age of 13 and sometimes younger have talks about BJ's then there is something that is out of control.

I heard a teacher of a middle school on the radio the other night and she called in to mention that she reads and hears about 6th and 7th graders talking about sexual acts that at their age they really shouldn't know about.

I don't have an issue with sex in general and even porn on the Internet is fine, I just find it a little unnerving that it is so easy to find. Like I said, "butt love" easily found by 7 year olds who aren't looking for it is an issue.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 07:06 pm
Do you think that rural farm kids from 1850-1950 had more or less information on the mechanics of sex than city kids today?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 08:04 pm
Baldimo wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
IMO, they are answering calls that genetics and human history has given them, not MTV.


i agree with you. it's called "the sex urge" for a reason.

here's something that i find interesting. many? most? all? of the proponents of the abstinance only pov, it would seem, are also proponents of creationism (or it's new spin, intelligent design...) over evolution. i.e., god created the heavens (which i tend to agree with) and the earth (isn't that covered under the heading, "heavens"?), along with the instantaneous appearance of adam, then eve. so every thing and every being would then be a work of god. every aspect of the human being would then be the condition intended by god. including the sexual urge. yes? no?

as we know, the "naughtiness" of sex is a fairly recent development in the history of man. only a few hundred years, really. but if we want to be liberal about it, we could for the sake of argument say, 1500 to 2000 years. still, a relative drop in the bucket of mankind's existence.

very often i have heard this explained by the philosophy that, unlike animals, man has "risen above" the beastial urges and walks a higher plane. the mind has grown sufficently to control the natural urges of the body...

isn't that type of concept commonly evolving, or evolution ?


either way, when all else fails, blame it on rock 'n roll. or hollywood...


You don't think this "sexual revolution" that has taken place in the last 30 or 40 years hasn't had an effect on the youth? Sure the times when my parents were young were a little prude but when my son can pull WebPages off the Internet dealing with "butt love" then there is a limit that has been surpassed. The sexual innocence that I enjoyed as a child is being lost on the youth of today. When children the age of 13 and sometimes younger have talks about BJ's then there is something that is out of control.

I heard a teacher of a middle school on the radio the other night and she called in to mention that she reads and hears about 6th and 7th graders talking about sexual acts that at their age they really shouldn't know about.

I don't have an issue with sex in general and even porn on the Internet is fine, I just find it a little unnerving that it is so easy to find. Like I said, "butt love" easily found by 7 year olds who aren't looking for it is an issue.


um, i understand your meaning baldi. but rather than putting it down to the "sexual revolution", i feel like it's more about the "human revolution". there's virtually no corner of our lives, reality, society or what have you that hasn't become nearly unrecognizable from what we experienced as kids. just a few obvious examples;

there are young people who have never seen or heard a vinyl record. many have never had a cassette deck in their car. remember the first time you saw a walkman ? know any kids that have one ? no ? how about an ipod ?

when i was born, the jet airplane was functionally less than ten years old. the sound barrier had not been broken. alan shepard had not blasted into space. now americans have been to the moon multiple times, there's a space station. except in the case of tragedy, space shuttle launches became so commonplace that it rarely gets airtime. we have a space telescope that can actually look back in time to nearly the beginning of the universe.

even as a teenager, my hometown had only three television stations and less than a dozen radio stations, and that's including the 30 watters that carried the preachers. now, there is access to channels from around the world. the best radio comes from satellites down to a radio you can pull out of your car and take to your desk.

cancer is no longer an automatic death sentence. polio and tuberculosis are rare. don't like wearing glasses ? a short, outpatient eye surgery can fix ya right up. many physical defects can be corrected or repaired at the time of birth. i'm not sure, but i think i've even heard that some things can be fixed in the womb. i had a hernia operation when i was 6 or 7. i was in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. more recently, i under went quad bypass on a tuesday afternoon and was sent home on saturday.

the point i'm trying to make is that we cannot lock the world out anymore. the genie is out of the bottle, etc.

the same mental evolution and precociousness (sic?) that allows my 7 year old great nephew to run circles around my nephew in all things computer is the same quality that allows him to take in and comprehend things that we (yep. i say we because there are still some areas of awareness that even i think he should not know about yet) find to be too adult.

but ya know, baldi, some of the things that you mentioned were pretty common knowledge among me and my fellow 13 year olds. and 11 or 12 year olds for that matter.

the only thing that made any of it confusing to me was that my very straight laced parents refused to even enter a discussion about sex. i'm still waiting for my dad to tell me about the birds and the bees. i learned about that stuff the good old fashioned way... on the street. Laughing

what little sex ed they offered in "health and p.e." was limited to little more than; "this is a boy, he has a penis. this is a girl, she doesn't." frankly, if there'd been realistic discussion about the whole thing, there would have been a lot less teen pregnancy. but the same people who don't like the idea of meaningful and in depth education about sex are pretty much the same people (or type of person) that made such a stink about it back then.

still, i do have to agree with you that it is a little disconcerting when i try to google info on my "siamese cat" and the first few pages are hits advertising sites for "babes with hot $#$%#&%&" or whatever.

but that's not an issue of censorship being the fix, but more like better rules on what keywords and meta data can be submitted for those types of sites.

until then, there are several "kids only" connections, i think aol has one. also user installable gate keepers like net nanny.

but when all else fails, parents that are really concerned about what their kids see or hear in the home can spend time surfing or watching tv with the kid, or even just not have tv, radio or the internet in the home.

there is no good substitution for good parenting.


hope all else is well with you, dude...

dtom
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 10:15 am
Nice post dtom

Baldimo, the biggest sexual revolution in America happened in the 1920's. We still seem to be trucking along just fine, though.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 11:30 am
HPV doesn't just affect girls. I'm curious as to why the article posted at the start of this thread states that "girls would have to be vaccinated..."

Quote:
and could lead to cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis. Low-risk HPV also may cause abnormal Pap results or genital warts.

Health experts estimate there are more cases of genital HPV infection than any other STI in the United States. According to the American Social Health Association, approximately 5.5 million new cases of sexually transmitted HPV infections are reported every year. At least 20 million people in this country are already infected.


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm

This really isn't an issue of abstinance. You can be abstinate and run across one of the 20 million people already infected and presto - your very own personal case of HPV.

A vaccine that could prevent cancer!?

That sounds like something we should all get behind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » more culture of life hypocrisy
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 06:41:06