The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

HPV Vaccine Makes Baby Jebus Cry

The new Conservative budget was unveiled yesterday and it allotted $300 million to vaccinate girls against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). As much as I can't stand the thought of calling myself a "conservative", I think this is a great idea and the Harper government should be commended for thinking ahead and implementing an idea that the more right wing of their supporters don't like.

And by "right wing", I mean Christians.

And by "Christians", I mean "invisible-man-believeing retards" or IMBRs.

If you don't agree with me on that, here's a sample of the "thinking" that IMBRs voiced:
...when the state of Texas decided to make vaccination against human papillomavirus mandatory, many evangelical Christians cried foul. Because the disease is sexually transmitted, they argued that the vaccination would take away their parental rights and could give girls implicit permission to have sex.¹

Right, because as you all know, nothing says "underage sex party" like a vaccination shot. But I digress, so please see here for more:
Last October the (Family Research) council’s president, Tony Perkins, spoke decidedly against the vaccine. Mr. Perkins proclaimed, “Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence. It sends the wrong message.”²

Abstinence is just not the way to go, people. Sorry, but check this out right here:
To date, six studies of abstinence-only programs have been published. None of these studies found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse. Thus, the weight of evidence indicates that these abstinence-only programs do not delay the onset of intercourse.³

Ooohh! Snap! See, I wouldn't lie to you. Well, ok, I would, but not about abstinence. My kid isn't even born yet, but I'm already playing the conversation in my mind of how I'm going to talk to her about sex and her first time and all that crap. Do I want my kid to have sex? No, not until she's well good and ready and is cool to do it on her terms. But I'm a realist and I'm pretty sure that she'll meet some jerkoff musician or football player and she'll want him when she's fucking sixteen or something.

Instead of yelling at her to "keep it in her pants", I'd rather be someone she trusts and someone she knows she can talk to about anything, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be for me. If she knows to use a condom, awesome. If she's been vaccinated against HPV, swellness. I can't understand why anyone would be against this stuff.

Then I get to Focus on the Family and their website where they give their position on the HPV vaccine. They say this:
Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school. The decision of whether to vaccinate a minor against this or other sexually transmitted infections should remain with the child’s parent or guardian. As in all areas of sexual health and education, Focus on the Family upholds parents’ right to be the primary decision maker and educator for their children.*

See, and that sounds ok in principle until you read a couple paragraphs above that in the same article where it says:
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

Yeah, "God's design"...you read that correctly. I know that IMBRs think that their friend "up there" will keep their children pure until they...well, until they meet "Mr. Right" and then settle down, Leave It To Beaver style, into comfortable sex-only-for-procreation living.

Somehow, education and communication seem to be more adult and effective than fear and control through intimidation/guilt. Silly Christians, myths are for kids! Get over it and catch up with the 21st century!


¹ from the afore-linked article
² from this article
³ from Siecus stats
* from here

4 Barbaric Yawps:

At 21/3/07 8:38 am, Blogger King Aardvark said...

I remember reading somewhere that if Harper and his ex-Reform party buddies were in the States, they'd only be moderate Republicans or even right-wing Democrats. Regardless, it's nice to see that he's on the ball for this one. I do wonder if he'd bother with it if he had a majority government though.

All the fundy organizations won't be happy until women have no fun whatsoever.

"But I'm a realist and I'm pretty sure that she'll meet some jerkoff musician or football player and she'll want him when she's fucking sixteen or something."

Why is it always a musician or football player or something like that? Why can't it be a non-jerkoff nerdy science guy or something? ;-)

 
At 21/3/07 8:24 pm, Blogger Eamon Knight said...

Yeah, good on Harper for this one, though I expect it would have happened anyways whichever side was in power. But it's nice to have confirmation that, despite his evangelical faith and general coziness with the Bush-man, Harper & Co. aren't the kind of sanctimonious theocrats that infest the Excited States of Hysteria. I'm no Tory (and even less so since they joined up with the Reformers), but I'm beginning to think the country can survive a few years of (minority) Conservative govt.

 
At 21/3/07 10:03 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, if it was any other common disease that could cause cancer, and you could be vaccinated against it, people would have no problem. But since the word SEX is involved, here come the religeous right thinking that someone somewhere is going to have fun. We're talking about vaccinating against cancer, people! These people would rather risk their children getting cancer, hoping that will scare them away from sex before marriage. And what about AFTER marriage? Will God just protect them after that? It just makes me want to pound my head against a wall.

Good on ya Canadians for having a leadership with the balls to make the right call on this one.

 
At 31/3/07 10:36 pm, Blogger tina said...

I agree that if it prevents cancer why in the world would a parent say no to it? One answer I got was, "no one knows the long term effects of this vaccination, my daughter may get cancer from it twenty years down the road." I posted on another blog site, a few childhood vaccinations and their ingredients, not very pretty sounding things in those measle vaccinations or chicken pox vaccinations. If my daughters were in 6th grade I would definitely give them the vaccination. Religion is a cop out, it's a scare tactic.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home