Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

...because they think it will promote sexual promiscuity. This is a joke, right?

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article755931.ece

Quote:

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'."

Yeah, because teenage girls are most concerned with getting cancer as a consequence to having sex. Right.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,607 • Replies: 66

No top replies

It boggles my head to think anyone could oppose a cure for cancer, on no matter what grounds.

0 Replies

0 Replies

These are probably the same people that were happy about AIDS.

0 Replies

Well, their ilk are against condoms being part of birth control in Africa for clinics being funded by the US and against proper sex education in the USA for the same reason, so I don't see why allowing people to die from cancer would be any problem for them at all.

0 Replies

Yeah, we've had a few go-rounds about this here I think. Ack I need to get to bed, call it a bookmark...

0 Replies

Breaking News:

This just in. The Family Research Council has determined that the use of toilet paper by young girls will lead to sexual deviancy. Commonly used by humans as part of their hygienic rituals when using a bathroom, the FRC states that toilet paper may also be used by couples to tidy themselves up after having had sexual relations.

"We would oppose any measures to coerce parents into authorizing use of toilet paper in schools or in the home," 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 to encourage administration of the tissues to the delicate nether regions of their bodies. Care must be taken not to communicate that such application does not make sex 'clean'. Sex is dirty no matter how you swipe it."

0 Replies

As long as the FRC and other groups continue to marginalize themselves and prove to us that they are, indeed, insane, then we can get on with serious medical research.

0 Replies

Good one, Butrflynet.

0 Replies

moral majority, what an interesting name, i'm certain they aren't the first part, let's hope they aren't the last either

0 Replies

Incredible.
What on earth is the matter with these people?

0 Replies

Started this one a little over a year ago.

Some of the same arguments taking place still, but NPR was saying the other day that not as much opposition is out there now as when it was first being reported.

0 Replies

If there is a hell it was meant for the moral majority

0 Replies

Re: Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine
I hate to be a party pooper here on a thread to bash the Moral Majority, but nowhere in the article posted does it say they are against the vaccine. It says

Quote:

"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.

Personally, I agree with that stance.

But regardless of how I think, I don't read into that anything that says they are against the vaccine. If they are against the vaccine, then y'all need something better than this to back it up.

Then again, based on the tone of the posts here, I guess the point was not to generate discussion, but rather was simply to practice bashing people of faith. So far, y'all are doing a good job, so I'll now let you continue.

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

moral majority, what an interesting name, i'm certain they aren't the first part, let's hope they aren't the last either

A popular button several years ago read: "The moral majority is neither."

0 Replies

Re: Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

CoastalRat wrote:

But regardless of how I think, I don't read into that anything that says they are against the vaccine. If they are against the vaccine, then y'all need something better than this to back it up.

What about the sentences before and after the one you quoted, CR?

Conservative groups, including the influential Family Research Council (FRC), have voiced concerns that immunising young girls against the virus [..] may lead to sexual promiscuity.

and

"Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. [..]"

0 Replies

Re: Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

CoastalRat wrote:

I hate to be a party pooper here on a thread to bash the Moral Majority, but nowhere in the article posted does it say they are against the vaccine. It says
Quote:

"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.
Personally, I agree with that stance.

But regardless of how I think, I don't read into that anything that says they are against the vaccine. If they are against the vaccine, then y'all need something better than this to back it up.

Then again, based on the tone of the posts here, I guess the point was not to generate discussion, but rather was simply to practice bashing people of faith. So far, y'all are doing a good job, so I'll now let you continue.

From the Article...

"Merck and Glaxo have been in discussions with Christian conservative groups in America to assuage their concerns. Lobbying organisations such as the FRC exercise considerable political power, and if they succeed in pushing their agenda it "certainly could have a negative impact" on the use of the vaccine, said Mike Ward, an analyst at Nomura Code Securities"

Why is Merck in discussion with any "religious" group regarding the sale of their product? Simple...they must be a powerful lobbying group.

Well in my view, FRC should tend to it's own flock and keep their opinion out of my life. If they want to brainwash their own, that's their businees. They have no right or basis in forcing their opinions on others.

0 Replies

Re: Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

nimh wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
But regardless of how I think, I don't read into that anything that says they are against the vaccine. If they are against the vaccine, then y'all need something better than this to back it up.

What about the sentences before and after the one you quoted, CR?

Conservative groups, including the influential Family Research Council (FRC), have voiced concerns that immunising young girls against the virus [..] may lead to sexual promiscuity.

and

"Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. [..]"

Not sure why it is a big deal that some group is "voicing concerns" or concerned about the message something would send to children. It still does not mean they are against the vaccine, which is the statement that everyone here is attempting to paint the MM with making.

I guess it is possible that they are against the vaccine, but the article quoted never says that. That is simply the point I am making. And the quotes before and after my quoted portion does not do anything to show that they are against the vaccine.

0 Replies

Re: Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

woiyo wrote:

Well in my view, FRC should tend to it's own flock and keep their opinion out of my life. If they want to brainwash their own, that's their businees. They have no right or basis in forcing their opinions on others.

Woiyo, that would be exactly my opinion about the government making mandatory a vaccine for cervical cancer. It is not an infectious disease and thus making it mandatory to vaccinate a child is nothing but government making decisions that are best left up to a parent. I personally have no issue with the vaccine or with groups recommending that it be given, but I would draw the line at making it a requirement.

So, unless the MM comes out and says they are against the vaccine altogether, then I don't see a problem with the stance they seem to be taking.

0 Replies

Nobody jumped in simply to bash religion, but to voice concern that a cure for cancer could cause so much consternation.

0 Replies

Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know