Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine

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.

I guess it's possible that they are not against the vaccine but are just against the administration of it, but really, what's the difference?

Truthfully, I'm against making it mandatory too as I am against some other mandatory vaccinations. But the idea that young girls getting this vaccine would somehow become more promiscuous is nothing short of assinine. And there's nothing in the article that indicates they are only against mandatory vaccine requirements, or that their objection is for any other reason than an absurd misunderstanding of why young people have sex.

As a person of faith myself, I'd have to say that your hypothesis is incorrect, CR.

"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.

"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'."

Already, the Family Research Council and other conservative groups have stated they will oppose the vaccine being made mandatory. If the vaccine is not made mandatory for school enrollment, some insurance companies might not cover its cost. The vaccine is expected to cost as much as $300.

In October 2005, Focus on the Family issued a news release headlined, "Some question the ethics of a universal inoculation against a sexually transmitted disease."

Quote:

"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.

Here's more from their letter:

Quote:

"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'."

This indicates why the mandatory aspect is pertinent:

Quote:

Already, the Family Research Council and other conservative groups have stated they will oppose the vaccine being made mandatory. If the vaccine is not made mandatory for school enrollment, some insurance companies might not cover its cost. The vaccine is expected to cost as much as $300.

Then there's Focus on Family:

Quote:

In October 2005, Focus on the Family issued a news release headlined, "Some question the ethics of a universal inoculation against a sexually transmitted disease."

1. What is Gardasil?

Gardasil is a vaccine that targets four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Those strains are called HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18.

HPV-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70 percent of all cervical cancers. Cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix, which connects the vagina to the uterus.

HPV-6 and HPV-11 account for about 90 percent of genital warts.

The vaccine is also approved to help prevent vaginal and vulvar cancers, which can also be caused by HPV.

Where you are mistaken is that human papillomavirus (HPV) is sexually transmitted; and it can lead to cervical cancer.

The vaccine is actually for HPV, and by extension cervical cancer.

Quote:

1. What is Gardasil?

Gardasil is a vaccine that targets four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Those strains are called HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18.

HPV-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70 percent of all cervical cancers. Cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix, which connects the vagina to the uterus.

HPV-6 and HPV-11 account for about 90 percent of genital warts.

The vaccine is also approved to help prevent vaginal and vulvar cancers, which can also be caused by HPV.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/08/health/webmd/main1695636.shtml

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.

I remain opposed to their reasoning.

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.

The seriousness of HPV and other STIs underscores the significance of God's design for sexuality to human wellbeing. Thus, Focus on the Family affirms - above any available health intervention - abstinence until marriage and faithfulness after marriage as the best and primary practice in preventing HPV and other STIs.

Therefore, Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school. (Emphasis theirs, T.)

DrewDad wrote:

As a person of faith myself, I'd have to say that your hypothesis is incorrect, CR.

Being a person of faith really has nothing to do with it. At least in my opinion, it is simple reading comprehension. Being opposed to forcing parents to have the vaccine administered is nowhere near the same as being against the vaccine. Having concerns about young girls thinking they can be promiscuous because of this vaccine is not the same as being against the vaccine.

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.

I too oppose it being made mandatory. Doesn't matter how much or how little it costs. Cervical cancer is not a communicable disease, as far as I know. Unless it is, the government has no inherent right to tell me I must have my child vaccinated.

CoastalRat wrote:

I too oppose it being made mandatory. Doesn't matter how much or how little it costs. Cervical cancer is not a communicable disease, as far as I know. Unless it is, the government has no inherent right to tell me I must have my child vaccinated.

When it comes to public health, welfare, and safety, the government is endowed with police power to tell people what to do via the enactment of laws so long as the requirement serves a legitimate government interest. Preventable illnesses and injuries place a strain upon society.

Although automobile accidents are not communicable diseases, the state desires to minimize injuries through mandatory seatbelt laws. Click it or ticket!