Would cancer vaccine encourage promiscuity?

Cervical cancer, which is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, kills almost 4,000 women in the United States each year. A promising new vaccine that could virtually wipe out cervical cancer is being resisted by some conservative abstinence-only advocates who worry that it might encourage girls to be sexually active.
Their logic is strained to the breaking point here. The vaccine is behavior-neutral; it simply provides protection against this virus when and if the person becomes sexually active, whether inside or outside of marriage. Most young women don’t even know about the virus in question, research suggests, so how could a vaccine to protect them from it encourage promiscuity? It’s not likely to be a determining factor in their choices.
A more legitimate issue is whether the vaccine should be mandatory, included in the usual boosters required for public school students. I’m not convinced that it should be. Perhaps there’s some middle ground whereby students are strongly encouraged to be vaccinated but an opt-out provision is included for parents dead-set against it. Most parents, I’d guess, would choose protection for their children.
Posted by Randy Scholfield

29 Comments

  1. R.D.Liebst
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 2:55 am | Permalink

    You know every time I hear something that would be the perfect evidence for having someone certified as being mental illness. I then hear of something better, the thought that having a cure for a cancer would lead to promiscuity. How many sleepless night did the person that thought that up have?

    It sounds more like one of your bogus headlines Randy!

  2. Jed
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 4:02 am | Permalink

    RD,Actually, the exact same argument has been directed by preachers at condoms, penicillin, the pill, Suffragettes, Planned Parenthood, movies and Model T Fords, too. Amazing how many causes promiscuity has! And they’re absolutely heartbroken that technology has taken away so many of the divine punishments for it, thus making their duty to safeguard hymens so much more difficult to justify. Before long, at this rate, they may be forced to find real jobs, perish the thought!

  3. Ed Friedemann
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    As soon as cars came with a back-seat…..it was over.

  4. J M Walker
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    It’s amazing to hear about how these so called religious conservatives would rather 4000 women a year die, than release a vaccine that would prevent their death. Just amazing. Maybe the Kansas legislature can find a way to put a sin tax on the vaccine.Ed…write a book. Sell it outside synagogues.

  5. TRACY
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    JM, good post. Jed too.It’s the same kind of thinking that goes:First stem cells, next we’ll be mutilating babies in late term pregnancies.

    Wether these fools like it or not, even their little princess will grow up.

  6. Ed Friedemann
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Tracy

    Karl Rove drove to fools to the polls in record numbers, using fear of “gay marrigage,” enough to elect Bush, so using fools is big business for the cabal.

    Walker

    Imperial Hubris has already been written, but why would they want buy any book that would cut them off from the next 1.7 trillion dollars they will be receiving from the United States, to match that amount they’ve already mooched since 1973?

    And that only drafts what they’ve already ranked-in from the Holocaust. We’re not talking just “pocket money.” They may be exceptionally greedy, but not dumb enough to cut-off their gravy train.

    The “settlers” received 2.5 billion from the United States just to move from Gaza. That’s more than “Katrina victims” received. Our victims from Katrina received just 2000 { our treasury must have been getting low }.

  7. Joe Williams
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    As long as people will pay for it. Pharmacutical companies spend billios on research and development to produce drugs to help save lives and cure diseases. I know people think they are evil because they want to make money, butt that is their business and I believe they deserve it. They are not going to spend billions, so they can give it away to people.

    Unless you want the government to buy it for you. That will cost us in taxes.

  8. Ed Friedemann
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Joe

    You might point-out that research costs money. The average “drug” takes 10 to 15 years to develop, so it’s not just about profits.

    The price you pay for the one you want now pays for the one you’ll be wanting later.

  9. Ed Friedemann
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    The Onion

    http://www.theonion.com/content/

  10. Posted November 3, 2005 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    R.D. — It’s so idiotic that it seems made up, I’ll grant you, but right-wingers really believe this.

    And you notice how it’s the WOMEN that suffer because of the right-wingers intolerant superstition, kinda like with abortion, hmmm . . .

    Once you buy the idea that Eve was the mother of all sin, then you can easily buy the idea that women should suffer for “sin.”

  11. Steven E.
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Back to the subject a second,

    I wonder if we could get the Religious Right’s permission to use this vaccine, if we agreed to stone to death any girl/woman they viewed as guilty of promiscuity?

  12. TRACY
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Steven, torture seems popular, could we use that instead?

  13. Steven E.
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    TRACY,Yeah, I guess; it’s just that stoning seems more Bibical.

  14. CF
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    All these bluenose, ‘Christian’ fascists care about is that women are having sex with folks who aren’t them. And it makes them MAD!

  15. Jed
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Galahad,In the same vein, a medieval christian legend tells about the honest blacksmith who refused to make the nails for Jesus’ crucifixion, so his wife went behind his back and made them.Such stories were used to prove how evil women were, and how their excessive lust tempted men into a life of sin.If you want to read more on the subject, google a translation of the “Malleus Malificarum.”It’s a root document that still seems to shape conservative christian’s attitudes toward women.

  16. Jed
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Steven,Doesn’t getting stoned lead to more promiscuity?

  17. TRACY
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Stoners certainly hope so.Go to the local bar an hour before closing time for positive proof.

  18. Allie
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately, the RR has figured out how to control public servants. They will get this to die by FDA, just like plan B, and despite support from the medical community. Can I get a vaccine for how the RR makes me ill?

  19. TRACY
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God.Lenny Bruce(1923 – 1966)

  20. XXX
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Wouldn’t it be great if we could invent a vaccine that would cure anal rententivness in the religious right? Considering how much conservatives hate sex, I wonder where little republicans come from.

  21. Roo
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Read the F5 Wichita paper, a nice letter to the editor. I do caution, some strong words are used.

    Galahad, I thought Lilith, Adam’s first wife, is the Mother of All Evil, for it was hear who swore vengeance upon all offsprings of Eve. ;)

  22. J M Walker
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    XXXThere is a vaccine already for curing the religious right of their anal rententivness. It’s called common sense.Little republicans arn’t born, their cloned:-))

  23. Steve
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    I wish the superior Galahad would tell me what to think about this.

  24. Joe C.
    Posted November 3, 2005 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    There you go again. Abortion and promiscuity are not political subjects. They are religious.Catholics and most other religions are against abortion and promiscuity. Kennedy, Kerry and all other practicing Catholics are anti abortion. Most Republicans vote their religion, democrats do not.Personally, I was pro both until my kids turned teens. Suddenly I could see the down side of early pregnancy and promiscuity in general. Now my kids kids are seeing the down side. HE HE HE. Just like God planned it.

  25. Posted November 3, 2005 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    Steven–isn’t it Rushbo who says that he needs to tell his listeners what to think.

    Silly me, I would never listen to anyone who demeaned me in that way.

    But you seem to like it, don’t you big boy.

    Megadittos, Steven.

  26. Roo
    Posted November 4, 2005 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    Speaking about religions vs. vaccinations, look what happen to polio eradications in Sub-Saharan Africa. I fault those clerics who misguide the population by believing the drops will render women infertile, and thus setting up the next global epidemy.

    These christianists can’t see that even if their girls are chaste, their husbands-to-be may not be. And what’s wrong to carry an umbrella around even if the weather turned out to be nice and the rain that has been predicted just never materializes?

  27. justoneman
    Posted November 4, 2005 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    A new drug that “might” promote promiscuity in women. Sounds good to me. How long before it is out on the market?????? And will it be available over the counter????

  28. R.D.Liebst
    Posted November 4, 2005 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Good news there is something that has been on the market for promoting promiscuity for some time now. Its called a wedding ring!

  29. TRACY
    Posted November 7, 2005 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    RD, I think wedding rings should be about monogamy, not promiscuity.