Third Party & Independents: Archives

I agree completely. By opposing this vaccine, they are saying that the penalty for sex should be death. No repentance, no redemption, no compassion, just a horrible death by cancer. I wonder what Jesus would think. 35% of women in America (Test done in Iowa) are infected with HPV. Thirty-five percent. Of those, 68% have an oncogenic strain. (source) I guess they value the physical existence of the brain-dead more than the life of a young woman who made a mistake, or even more than the 35% of women who are infected.

Just on a side note, banning the vaccine would disproportionately hurt the poor. The reason that cervical cancer is so rare in the US is because of regular pap smears, which can detect HPV-caused lesions before they become cancerous. Poor women without access to regular, preventative health care are the ones who develop this type of cancer.

I’m a Christian. But what these people are doing and what they stand for make me sick.

I guess you could say that this only shows that while the religious fundamentalists in this country demand tolerance, they aren’t interested in practicing any.

You claim to be Christian, you claim to read your Bibles but you don’t understand a damn word you read.

A pox on all your houses.

I find it amusing that this would “give licence for young women to engage in prematiral sex”. As if all the horny boys out there were asleep and the girls took advantage of them.

This mindset is typical among Republicans. What else would you expect from people who thinks GOD talks to them?

I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity of the evangelicals. Just when I think I’ve seen it all, they top it. Regretabbly, they are playing with fire, all it will take is for HIV or HPV to mutate into an airborne strain, and we’re all going to be in very sorry shape.

From what I have seen and read about this medical breakthrough it is a wonderful and potential lifesaving discovery.

Apparently the research and testing was done thoroughly and under controlled conditions. The results showed a 0% contraction of the disease by the group taking the drug and a significantly positive % of contracting the disease by the placebo group.

It seems that this is a GODSEND for women and, I understand the drug can be ready for distribution and use in a year.

Opposition to this by any responsible human being is ridiculous.

While abstinence IS the only SURE way to avoid STD, and it would be nice if ALL unmarried people practiced it, fact is PEOPLE ARE GOIG TO HAVE SEX married or not. And as long as they do their will be STDs and a need for a cure.
To be against a medicine because ‘It’ll encourage girls to have sex’ is not very bright.
As a Christian their are things I’m opposed to and certian sexuall behaviors that I believe are immoral. Premarital sex is one of them. However I realize that it won’t be stopped without a change in the hearts of those involved in it.
So if a cure for ANY kind of STD is found I say use it.
These so called ‘Christian’ organization that come out ‘AGAINST’ everything give TRUE CHRISTIANITY a bad name.

I continue to have a problem with the term(s) Evangelical and Christian. More so when used together as Evangelical Christian.

By most researched definitions Christian is a person who believes in the teachings of CHRIST.

Evangelical is a person who believes in the teachings of CHRIST and/but is somewhat more committed to spreading the word in a more visible forum.

Note : The above definitions are a summary and a personal interpretation of several definitions/descriptions found during research.

Many if not most Christians, either through their own belief or a combination of their church’s doctrine and their own belief are moved or encouraged to “spread the word” about CHRIST. This is and can be done in many ways ; inviting people to church, visiting people at their homes, passing out literature, engaging people in conversations or through setting a behaviorial example. There are of course many other ways as well.

This to me is acting as or in an Evangelical way Which causes me to pose the question Is not every Christian and Evangelical Christian.

steve smith
This to me is acting as or in an Evangelical way Which causes me to pose the question Is not every Christian and Evangelical Christian.

A TRUE Christian is. But they will not be pushie about it as they know that only God can change peoples hearts.
They also won’t be trying to push their personal likes and dislikes of on everyone else.
They will take a stand against immorality but won’t be trying to legislate morality as the know this won’t work.
This is why I personally have to wonder if Robertson, Falwell, Swagart, and others of their kind a really true Christians.

Christ taught love and compassion above all. Christian evangelicals have neither. To them, it is more morally just to let someone die than to help someone live, as evidenced by their opposition to this vaccine. If these evangelicals really believe in God, they will have a lot to answer for on Judgement Day.

First, I’d like to say IMO the people opposing this vaccine for non-health related reasons need to be stopped. If there is a question about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, that’s a legitimate reason to stand against it, but this is ridiculous. Even the reason to be against it, i.e. “it will encourage single women to have sex”, doesn’t make sense. If the disease itself discouraged single women from having sex, it wouldn’t be nearly so prevalent.

Also, I’d like to ask how long has this disease been around and prevalent? I heard about it for the first time a few months ago and really don’t know that much about it.

As per the notion that sexually transmitted diseases are the wrath of God… If it were true, nothing we could do could stop it, therefore, if we CAN do something to stop it, then it couldn’t be a plague of punishment designed by almighty God. In short, if we can help, IMO there should be no religious reason not to.

steve smith,

“Is not every Christian and Evangelical Christian.”

No. I’m a Christian, but I don’t proselytize. If someone expresses curiousity or interest in something I do that is not openly Christian, but is Biblically-based, I will explain it to them, including the Biblical nature of it, but I don’t seek to convert people.

Though, I would also like to note that not all Evangelical Christians share the beliefs of these politically-active groups.

Saying “all Christians” is kind of like saying “all blacks”, unless you’re saying “all Christians believe in Christ” or “all blacks have darker skin” you’re likely to be wrong.

“All Christians believe pre-marital sex is wrong” is a false statement.

This scenario parallels what’s been going on for quite a while inside the FDA with allowing the morning-after contraceptive to be sold over the counter. (The morning-after pill is a souped-up dose of birth control pills that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg if taken within 48 hours after unprotected sex.)

Conservative interests have blocked approval for nationwide sale over-the-counter even though it’s been proven safe and effective. Their reason? Once again, they claim it will encourage promiscuity, even though in states where it’s already legal OTC, all studies have shown absolutely NO increase in teen promiscuity.

Major medical groups support over-the-counter sale of the morning-after pill, yet interests on the FDA committee have continually tabled its approval. And now, we’re seeing the same situation arise again with the anti-HPV vaccine: fringe groups are seeking to impose their evangelical religious views on everybody else by blocking access.

The irony of their blocking access to the morning-after pill is that this drug would undoubtably lower the abortion rate, a situation you’d think evangelical christians would applaud.

I can only presume that their main thrust is anti-woman. If you’ve been a bad girl and had unprotected sex, you deserve to get pregnant. In other words, pregnancy is just punishment for naughty sex.

stephanie:

HPV has been around a looooong time and probably started peaking in the 1970’s. I’m not sure when the link between HPV and cervical cancer was established. That was a fairly recent discovery (last 10 years?). HPV is the virus that causes venereal warts and both men and woman are equally vulnerable to it.

pianofan,

Pregnancy as punishment? I think you might be projecting some of your own notions, instead of asserting how they view things there.

While I have no problem with the morning-after pill or this vaccine, saying these organizations are anti-woman and want to punish these naughty women with pregnancy seems baseless to me. While I don’t agree with their positions on these issues, I think I understand where they’re coming from enough to say that isn’t an accurate portrayal of their reasoning.

Venereal warts? Hmm. I would have figured they were caused by the same thing regular warts are, but I’ve never really thought about it that much. Herpes has been the top STD on my mind lately.

Stephanie:

I’m sincerely interested in your opinion on this. Why DO these religious groups militate against things like the HPV vaccine and morning-after contraceptive?

In the case of the morning-after contraceptive, their claim that it would encourage teen-aged promiscuity was knocked down by studies that looked specifically into that issue. Still, they persisted in tabling the issue although the last time they tabled it, they gave no reason for the action.

So, now that science and reputable research have disproved their contentions, why do religious conservatives persist in blocking this?

Stephanie:

I’ve got another theory about why religious conservatives don’t like the HPV vaccine and the morning-after contraceptive: money and lots of it in the form of federal grants for the absinence-only sex education classes these groups sponsor in the public school system.

My two daughters were both subjected to this drek here in Texas in public schools. When I dug a little, I found out that the group that was paid (with taxpayer money) to teach these classes was closely connected to a VERY conservative religious foundation.

To make its case that abstinence was the ONLY choice kids should make, their sex ed. literature quoted erroneous facts about the effectiveness of condoms - lots of inflated figures about condom failure rates, etc. I checked the research sources this group used in its printed material and found that it was all old, disproved garbage (research that was suspect to begin with because it was funded by religious conservatives grinding an ax; research that has been categorically disproved by all NIH and CDC studies).

In short, the main message of the class was “if you have sex, a condom will give you scant protection against pregnancy and AIDS, and none against HPV (venereal warts), so just don’t do it. In other words, let’s just try to SCARE them aware from sex.

Most kids ARE going to engage in some kind of risky sexual behavior before they exit high school. I’m not happy about that, but it’s human nature. I worry that some kid, maybe my kids (after the laughable “sex education” they’ve received), will say, “why should I even bother to use a condom - it doesn’t work anyway” and have unprotected sex.

These groups make piles of filthy lucre teaching these classes. The HPV vaccine (and the morning-after contraceptive to a certain extent) is going to cut the ground out from under their argument for abstinence.

Stephanie,
All warts, genital and otherwise, are caused by papilloma viruses, but the viruses are different types. They are different in what tissue types they infect (the viruses that give you genital warts won’t give you skin warts, for example) and how oncogenic (cancer causing)they are. There are hundreds of different strains, but two of them are responsible for over 70% of cervical cancer, and these are the ones the vaccine protects against.

Anytime a disease can be stopped it should be. I cannot understand why sexual behavior is in the forefront of so much discussion especially from organizations which should be organizing programs to help the hungry and trying to stop the organized slaughter of innocent women and children during acts of war. Why are these organizations not trying to outlaw war? The sexual behavior that these groups profess to want, seems to me to be nothing more than the domination of women by men.

“Why are these organizations not trying to outlaw war?”

Excellent question. I recall seeing a news clip of the Reverend Jerry Falwell talking to Wolf Blitzer saying that “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops and I am for the President—chase them all over the world, if it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”

Now, if you are a military man, or one focused on the security of the United States, or even a politician, these words are at least understandable. But, coming from an alleged man of God, I don’t understand this. As someone who claims to be a christian, Reverand Falwell departs time after time from Jesus’ admonishments to “love your enemies”, and to focus your efforts on the poor, the sick and the hungry. For as long as I can remember, Reverend Falwell and “The Old Time Gospel Hour” have directed anger and not love toward those who he disagrees. I don’t believe most christians share his veiws, but because of the access to media and the amount of money his organization receives, his voice becomes representative of how some people view christians. I don’t think that is a fair representation of christianity, and think that most christians are getting a bad rap. I’d like to see more christians who disagaree with Falwell’s approach become more vocal about how christianity should be represented.

In my opinion, Christianity as represented by Reverend Falwell, Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Reed and others smacks of corporatism, elitism and intolerance. I don’t seem them spending time with the disenfranchised. I see them rubbing shoulders with the powerful. I see them with millions of dollars at their disposal to lobby polticians. I see them advancing political agendas instead of providing support for the poor and least powerful. It seems to me their role model is Caiphas, high priest of the Jews during Jesus’ time instead of Christ himself.

Dennis:

I’ve done some cursory investigation into the issue you’ve raised, but I haven’t been able to find any substantive information. Can you please link me to something that shows the FRC’s opposition to the vaccine. I’d be interested to see exactly what their rationale is and how they have framed it and phrased it.

To date, I have found nothing that suggests they are opposed to it at all, but rather that they simply stand on the principle that abstinence is only 100% solution, which of course it is.

Thanks in advance for your help.

pianofan,

“Why DO these religious groups militate against things like the HPV vaccine and morning-after contraceptive?”

As I am not a member of such an organization and do not completely share their mindset I am guessing here, but I’d say it’s because they honestly believe that anything that limits their arguments against pre-marital or extra-marital sex will prevent them from achieving their goal, i.e. to end such sexual practices.

The problem, of course, is that unless the majority (preferably all) people share the MINDSET that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is bad there really is no way to end it. Even making it out and out illegal wouldn’t end the practice.

“So, now that science and reputable research have disproved their contentions, why do religious conservatives persist in blocking this?”

Not everyone is convinced by scientific methods, pianofan. People quote statistics as if that should end a debate, but some people honestly believe science is either wholly or partially bunk. So saying “science” and “reputable research” doesn’t necessarily cinch an argument. Not everyone believes science itself is reputable.

pianofan,

First, I have to ask… Have YOU taught your children about sex? That’s significantly more important that what is taught in school. School sex education is intended (or should be intended, IMO) for those children who do not receive sex education at home. However, for those parents who are concerned about the quality of sex education their children receive DO IT AT HOME!!! If done consistently it’s more effective than school sex ed anyway, besides the fact that you have the control.

“Most kids ARE going to engage in some kind of risky sexual behavior before they exit high school. I’m not happy about that, but it’s human nature.”

I personally don’t accept that argument. Most kids are going to have sexual experiences because the adults around them don’t intervene. If parents did more, then the incidence of child sexual activity would be a lot less. And this has been proven with anecdotal evidence, if nothing else. However, that doesn’t mean ALL children can be prevented from having sex. Historically speaking, I doubt that’s ever been obtained.

The thing about safe sex is it’s not, not really. It’s safer sex, but it’s not truly safe. There is no 100% guarentee. And even if condoms do protect you from an unwanted pregnancy or disease, they do nothing to safe-guard you from the emotional damage of early sexual experience. However, this doesn’t mean children shouldn’t be taught about the benefits and the risks of condom use, but playing up the benefits without telling the risks is just as dangerous (and dare I say it, stupid) as playing up the risks without describing the benefits.

Educating our population (including our children, but not just our children) about both the benefits and the risks of such sexual activity is more appropriate than any skewed version that is typically used. A truly educated choice is a real choice.

“These groups make piles of filthy lucre teaching these classes.”

Since this whole angle is a bit off-topic, I must put in my own off-topic response.

I’m MUCH more concerned with the piles of filthy lucre made by the pornography industry than I am by those “teaching these classes,” since those in the pornography industry make MUCH more money and do MUCH more damage than any sex education class I’ve ever heard about.

Brian,

Thank you. That clarifies the conflicting information trapped in my head so that it coincides more appropriately. Always appreciated! :-)

Q: Are the warts you get from being barefoot around pools oncogenic?

Stephanie:

Of course I (and my husband) have talked about sex, pregnancy, STD’s, etc., frequently with our kids. There are probably few intelligent parents walking the planet who haven’t.

You missed my point entirely about the abstinence-only group’s distortion of condom effectiveness. I don’t advocate playing up the benefits of condoms but, man-oh-man, I want kids to understand that sex with a condom is a lot safer than nothing. Abstinence-only ed. does NOT get that message across. Quite the opposite.

“Most kids are going to have sexual experiences because the adults around them don’t intervene. If parents did more, then the incidence of child sexual activity would be a lot less. And this has been proven with anecdotal evidence, if nothing else.”

Yowza … do you have kids? Do you actually believe parents have total control of kids every minute of every day? During the times one’s teen-ager is out on a date, how do you suggest a parent “intervene”? I agree that talking a LOT with your kids about this subject helps. It also helps if parents are vigilant about limiting, as much as possible, how much time kids spend alone without adults nearby. But, the older they get, the more unsupervised opportunities kids have. As a parent, I hope and hope that my kids’ radar steers them to make the right decisions when I’m not there to apply my (admittedly) super-controlling hand; but with one kid already in college, I know that my grip fades a little each year.

“I’m MUCH more concerned with the piles of filthy lucre made by the pornography industry.”

I hate the porn industry, too - don’t get me started. But it ain’t taxpayer money that fills their coffers, as is the case with the abstinence-only sex ed. folks. They are paid to teach in the public school system with federal grants.

By the way, research on kids who’ve had abstinence-only ed. is showing that it is NOT decreasing teen-aged sex an iota. But it sure loads them down with bad data.

joebagodonuts:

here’s a link:

http://cache.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/wo_jonietz112404.0.asp

also, check out newscientist.com

Interestingly enough, although the Family Research Council’s site posted an article yesterday adamantly opposing the HPV vaccine today, when I searched for it, the article had simply disappeared. They took a lot of flak for their position. Looks like they may be squirming away from their original position.

Knowing how easily things get mischaracterized in the media, I’d be curious to know what these groups are actually saying from a public policy point of view about the vaccine.

Are they attempting to block funding for research? Are they proposing a ban? Proposing that the vaccine be prevented from reaching those who want it? If so, I’d disagree with them, and most social conservatives and Christians I know would as well.

Or are they saying that the vaccine shouldn’t be a standard vaccine given—or required to be given—to all girls along with other childhood vaccinations? This is an important distinction.

If 4600 women die of cervical cancer a year, that’s still far few than the number who die of Hepatitis A and B in the U.S. each year, and vaccines for Hepatitis are readily available but not given to everybody—and for very good reasons.

A large reason is that the advantages of any vaccine have to be weighed against their risks—there will always be a percentage who get serious side effects or die from vaccines, as well as those who assume that their vaccine is protecting them from the consquences of risky behavior, and 4600 is still a relatively small number when wieghed against other potential risks.

When you’re talking about a vaccine that protects against conditions brought on by voluntary behavior, the critics might very well have a point about legitimizing risky behavior.

Promiscuity has MANY risks, many of which are far more worrying and more statistically likely than cervical cancer—i.e., AIDS and other venereal diseases, not to mention unwanted pregnancy.

Of course, those who want such a vaccine should have access to it, but the issue is hardly as simple as saying that everybody’s having sex so everybody should risk the side-effects of a vaccine which legitimizes even more risky behavior.

pianofan,

“Of course I (and my husband) have talked about sex…”

If this was really an “of course” issue, then sex ed in the schools would be totally unnecessary. That’s why I asked. (You wouldn’t have been the first person who I’ve asked that said “no” had you been such a person!)

“You missed my point entirely…”

As you did mine, my friend. My point was not that I agreee with “abstinence only” being taught in school. I do not. However, I also disagree with the “you’re going to do it anyway, so be safe” mentality. I think they’re both equally ineffective.

Quick story. I have a young friend who is sexually active. She was taught the “condoms are safe” mentality. She took a survey in school concerning her sex ed that included the question “Do you use protection when having sexual intercourse?” (She was complaining about the invasion of privacy.) So, I asked her what she said. Her response was, “Well, yeah! Do you think I’m stupid!” Then I asked her the important question, “Do you ALWAYS use a condom?” Her response was this, “No, after he ***ejaculates*** a few times you don’t need one. Everybody knows that!” How effective was her education? (And yes, I did correct her, but she just rolled her eyes.)

“Yowza … do you have kids?”

Yes, but my oldest is six (with a nine-year-old stepson), as I’m only 25. Most of my knowledge of this subject is still from the perspective of my own sexual education and knowing who did and did not have sex and what they were taught.

And, trust me, there are real, effective things parents can do to prevent their children from having sex. It starts with CARING and ends with ATTENTION. It’s about talking with them about WHY you don’t want them becoming sexually active, not just saying don’t do it. (And if pregnancy and disease are your only reasons, hello condoms!)

“But it ain’t taxpayer money that fills their coffers, as is the case with the abstinence-only sex ed. folks.”

No, but lots of taxpayer money gets spent on cleaning up the mess they make!

In the end, my point is this: I don’t like the proliferation of pre-marital and extra-marital sex within our nation. I believe it is unhealthy and damaging. However, I don’t think hiding or distorting information is an effective way to deal with this problem. And I certainly don’t think making life-saving vaccines unavailable would be at all appropriate.

JBOD, Sanger, I was basing my point on the quote from Bridget Maher from the FRC below.

“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,”

Certainly, the media has a tendency to distort messages. I’m not convinced this happened here and believe the quote is accurate as reported. If this was a left-wing rag, then that would be something else. This is a pretty good science site however so I feel like it’s fairly objective.

Sanger, I agree, I don’t believe you go innoculate everyone willy-nilly. However, in my view the reasons you don’t innoculate some people are because of potentiall harmful reactions to the vaccine. I don’t agree with the notion as stated by Ms. Maher that if you vaccinate someone for an infection such as HPV, then we will start to see an avalanche of promiscuous young girls as a result.

Dennis and Pianofan:

Thanks for the additional information, especially the link provided. I’d tend to agree more with Focus on the Family’s viewpoint, in which they discuss the potential ramifications of the vaccine while still suggesting its a good thing.

IFFF the idea comes across that the vaccine now allows kids to be sexually active since its safer (something that the “condoms are safe sex” crowd has done), then there are issues.

I’d suggest that the vaccine be used from the health standpoint, but as a parent, I’d also be counseling my kids on abstinence as the good option. This approach DOES work. Painting abstinence only a ‘head in the sand’ approach isn’t really accurate, though of course there are parents who use it this way. But if used properly, the abstinence approach helps kids understand what is acceptable or not.

To use a similar issue, I’ve told my kids that driving after drinking is not acceptable. I’ve not suggested to them that there are safer methods, that they only do so on less traveled roads, etc. Its a ‘NO driving’ policy. There are no other options, there are no conditions of acceptability, there is no discussion.

Sexuality is certainly a bit different, but my kids also know that I feel strongly about it. They get no encouragement that there are conditions that make sex acceptable, since of course little Jenny or Johnny often think that ‘but I like him a lot’ is a valid reason. The bottom line is my kids know the scoop. They know about condoms, they know about sexuality, they know the whole story. And to that story, I’ve added my viewpoints.

Ultimately, the decision will be theirs. But I will certainly be involved at least tangentially.

Stephanie,
“Are the warts you get from being barefoot around pools oncogenic?”

Not that I’ve ever heard of. All warts are just little tumors, but the only ones I’ve ever heard of that go on to cause cancer are the genital kind.

It is absurd to be against the distrobution of this vaccine, what next should the Mocambicans and other southern Africans start eating babies to solve hunger and over population. This is not a conservative issue, this is a rediculous cause that should never see the light of day. It is intersting to note that those who stand in the way of innovation are most likely to be steamrolled by it. In the 15th century the Ottoman Caliphat outlawed the printing press because was a sacralige to have a machine write the arabic alphabet. And now we see the results of such backwards looking logic. The strengh of america has been as innovaters not reactionaries.

You can make the vaccine available, without advertising it as the solution to sex being unsafe. The way drugs and vaccines are advertised today, that would be what would worry me the most.

You advertise the vaccine by emphasizing its strongest point - it will protect people from a virus known to be linked to cervical cancer.

Excellent article and follow-up posts, Dennis.
I agree with you and, also with the comments made by Rocky, Aldous, Taylor and Magoo (as usual!).

Sanger, I agree, I don’t believe you go innoculate everyone willy-nilly. However, in my view the reasons you don’t innoculate some people are because of potentiall harmful reactions to the vaccine.

I agree with your overall conclusions in the rest of your paragraph, but the best strategy for vaccination is to vaccinate everyone who can safely be vaccinated (with a vaccine like this one, which contains no viral DNA, that’s pretty much everybody). When everyone is vaccinated, then there is no more disease. I, personally, would love to see cervical cancer eradicated.

“Most kids ARE going to engage in some kind of risky sexual behavior before they exit high school. I⭠not happy about that, but itⳠhuman nature.”

I personally don’t accept that argument. Most kids are going to have sexual experiences because the adults around them don’t intervene. If parents did more, then the incidence of child sexual activity would be a lot less. And this has been proven with anecdotal evidence, if nothing else. However, that doesn’t mean ALL children can be prevented from having sex. Historically speaking, I doubt that’s ever been obtained.

Really? The more my parents intervened, the more I rebelled. I think it’s a lot more about the lifestyle the parents lead myself. When you’re a bigotted, self-contracticting hypocrite of a christian, your children will see right through it. Just my 2 cents.