Wednesday, June 14, 2006

I came across an article at AlterNet today called Why the Religious Right Fights Cancer Prevention (HT: Martian). The first paragraph reads:

The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel approved a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV) last week. The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations oppose it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that the FDA has approved the vaccine, conservatives are already working feverishly to limit or even prevent its use.

I encourage you to read the entire article before you read my comments on the article. After reading it, I posted the following comment on Martian's blog:

I am what most of you would call a…what was it ManWithoutAParty called us? A “religious right whacko.” However, I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing. On Monday I found out that a good friend of mine has HPV and has to have part of her cervix removed because it is pre- cancerous. She could still get cancer, and she may never be able to have children. When she marries, her husband will be able to take the vaccine and they will be able to enjoy the many pleasures of marriage. For that reason alone, I support the vaccine.

My concerns lie in the sources of the article. AlterNet itself is pretty liberally biased. It’s main source, Feministing.com, is most definitely liberally biased. Both are against conservative opinions on principle. From reading the article carefully, and noticing how words are spun, it seems to me that those who have been vocal aren’t against the vaccine itself–they realize it’s a good thing. They’re against making it mandatory. The article even quoted Focus on the Family, one of those “religious right whacko” organizations, as saying that it “supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school.”

The basic reasoning behind that being that by universally requiring this vaccine is akin to giving a 13 year old girl a license to go out and have sex with whoever she wants to because there’s no risk of disease (granted, that isn’t true because HPV is only one of any number of STDs). The fear is that as we come up with these amazing medical advances that take away the fear of having sex with people you don’t know, our society will crumble. How many of you want your 12 or 13 year old daughters having sex? Teenage pregnancy rates will skyrocket. Too many people will rely on welfare. Maybe I’m being slightly melodramatic, but everything has consequences. Nothing good can come out of giving teenagers a reason not to abstain.

But, I want to repeat this, just so no one here can try to twist my words. I am a Christian. I am conservative. And I support the HPV vaccine.

Yes, those words are true. What really upsets me about articles like this is that they pass off biased opinions as fact. AlterNet and Feministing both have agendas. Both are liberal and anti-religious. And somehow, these are the writers and sources for a story that is anti-conservative. Go figure.

Now here's the rub. If you take what has been said from conservative leaders in context then you will see that this story has completely spun them. No one is against the vaccine. What we are against is the mandatory universal vaccination of children for an STD.

We believe in teaching our children abstinence.
We believe in teaching our children that actions have consequences.
We believe in teaching our children that sex before marriage is wrong.
We believe in teaching our children that promiscuity is wrong.
But above all
We believe in teaching our children love, forgiveness, and grace.

The bottom line is that we believe parents ought to teach their children about life and how to live it. Vaccinations like these, if made mandatory, would  make it all too easy to forget that.

Tags: HPV, Vaccine, Christianity, Religious Right, Cervical Cancer, Cancer

Posted by Amanda at 6/14/2006 10:50:00 AM

11 Comments

 ontheedgeofmyseat posted at 6/14/2006 10:57:00 AM  
I love how you defended conservative viewpoints-thank you! My concerns when reading this article echoed yours exactly.

I've also seen some commercials on TV for different drugs which lower the risk of transfer of several STDs (Herpes, HPV, etc.) and, while I think this is a good thing, the way the commercials come off it seems they want you to think you now have 0% risk of spreading this disease! (Isn't that the same thing people used to believe about condoms?)

I don't think the problem lies with the vaccine itself. I would want my young children to get it, even in case of rape. But the problem comes when I don't follow up with TEACHING THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG! Parents need to step up and talk about abstinence. Even single parents can say, "I made a mistake and you can see for yourself how different my life is." If you really loved your children, you'd try your best to teach them to make wise, unharmful decisions. This is the key.

 someguy posted at 6/14/2006 01:21:00 PM  
Just passing through to make a comdedic comment to be taken seriously or not,

"When we talk about war, we are really talking about peace."

Things said like that, how can I take what they say in context?

 Laura posted at 6/14/2006 02:42:00 PM  
Excellent post, I linked to it. :-)

 Cheryl posted at 6/15/2006 02:42:00 PM  
Beautifully said.

 Amanda posted at 6/15/2006 03:38:00 PM  
Thanks for the encouragment, guys. I encourage you to get in on the discussion over at Martian's blog.

 Anonymous posted at 6/15/2006 11:33:00 PM  
I won't say anything about conservatism or liberalism. My problem is the condoning of poisons and they want to inject these in children! I can't support vaccines of any kinds as:

1. Efficacy rate: Never has a vaccine immunized anyone from anything. Look at the CDC's own reports on this.

2. Autism was created by vaccinations. It never existed prior to the mandating of vaccines. And the more vaccines they create.. the higher the rate of austism soars.

3. 87% of SIDS cases are actually vaccine-related.

4. Formaldehyde; thimersol; mercury; aborted fetal tissue; monkey kidney tissue; cow blood to name but a FEW of the nasty, vile, toxic ingredients being shoved through a needle into a child' fragile body.

 prying1 posted at 6/20/2006 09:16:00 AM  
I posted on this topic also.

It seems the anti-Christian side is willing to continue to spread the lie that groups such as Focus on the Family and Family Research Council even after being called on it.

Neither group is against the vacine as you stated. Both wish parental control over children recieving it. This should not become a state mandated vacine.

I say, as a Christian, the vacine is a good thing and the parents should be the ones to make the decision if their children should get it or not. Whether they make the decision on religious/spiritual/moral principles or health principles should not enter into the debate.

 Ed Darrell posted at 6/23/2006 01:33:00 AM  
Christians, please, lets get the facts straight.

There is no link from any vaccine to autism. Vaccines are not "poisons." Teaching kids right from wrong won't protect them from measles, mumps, chicken pox, nor most other diseases. HPV can be spread by non-sexual contact. Even when vaccines are recommended, parents may generally opt out. When parents opt out, they create circumstances ripe for epidemic disease. More kids die from epidemics caused by having not been vaccinated than die from vaccinations.

Good grief! The misinformation on this stuff makes one reel!

 jpe posted at 6/27/2006 07:25:00 PM  
I found your post disingenuous and creepy. On the former point: The feministing post was well-sourced, and the claims stayed within the evidence.

On the latter, it simply is the case that some people that won't get vaccinated will get cancer. That's a fact. Despite that fact (or probably because of it), you'd prefer to see the vaccine be administered voluntarily, with the upshot that more people will get cancer. When abstinence education > not getting cancer, there's something wrong.

 jpe posted at 6/27/2006 08:03:00 PM  
Here's, actually, why I find the attitude on the HPV virus so creepy. A though experiment: say there was a magical shot one could get as an infant that would ensure one wouldn't get pregnant until one wanted to get pregnant. Such a shot would all but eliminate all discretionary abortions, of course, since every pregnancy would be a wanted one. I have no doubt that the religious right would oppose such a shot with all its might. And it's because yall aren't pro-life; you're anti-sex. You'd happily accept more abortions for less extramarital sex.

 sld posted at 7/07/2006 01:31:00 AM  
What kind of loving parent would not vaccinate his/her daughter?

It's all well and good to say you would prefer to teach your daughter abstinence instead of vaccinating her. How will she be protected against HPV if she were ever raped? Or if her husband had a prior exposure to it? The truth is, a plan for abstinence is not a guarantee your daughter will remain disease-free. Furthermore, preventing one disease (out of so many) is not the same as giving her a sexual licence.

Should parents have the right to decide whether or not their children wear seatbelts while travelling in the family car? If they are in a car accident and the kids are injured or killed, wouldn't the parents be considered negligent? Even criminally irresponsible? I don't believe parents should have the right to risk the lives of their children.

Post a Comment

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link