Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nick, this debate is stupid....
It is stupid to dismiss a safety issue by claiming the preventative measures are mute because you think them religiously based. That hasn't stopped you from trying it though.
The only thing worth responding to what you said is that social engineering of the innoculation variety is done in a system which is primed for such actions -- social engineering of locking young women's legs closed until married isn't done in a system that is primed for such action and such action would indeed run counter to our concept of freedom.
Sorry. That thought is a bit imcomprehensible. The reasoning, from what I can fathom, seems a bit circular.
It is about "unintended consequences" from preventing a (as you suggest) minor disease that is associated with sexual intercourse. HIV may be the only known VD to have actively figured in on people's decisions to have sex or not and that is because its effects were immediate -- you shortened the life of the individual to three years at most from the infection date. Even now, with treatments for HIV extending the lives of HIV infected individuals to decades, we are seeing a rise in risky behavior -- notably unsafe sex in populations that had previously seen declines. Unintended consequence? Sure, but the problem ISN'T the treatments. It is human behavior -- and this is something that you cannot fix (we know, we've tried -- lobotomies only make vegetables).
You seem to validate my reasoning here. Thanks. You admit that a band-aid solution, a solution that only attempts to address the effects and not the causes, actually ends up increasing risky behavior. This actually has a MORE harmful result when viewed in the context of a longer timeframe. You call it an unintended consequence, but that isn't honest. There are people right now pointing out the possibility of that consequence and you are dismissing them because you claim the basis for their reasoning is religious.
It isn't religious though. The reality is that attempting to treat the symptoms alone isn't enough.
Regardless, what Chris is attempting to argue is that by providing this vaccine you will have the unintended consequence of having more premarital sex. To which I reply: Bullshit.
You are really hung up on this religion and marriage thing aren't you. Does it matter if one is married? The real issue is multiple sex partners. You can be married, have an affair and still get HPV. You can be unmarried have twenty partners and never get it. As with all things, you have to work to minimize your risk.
Look, we gladly say that if you smoke, you increase your risk of lung cancer. We easily admit that the earlier you start, the later you quit and the more often you do it, the higher your risk. We even will allow second hand parties to implicate the behavior.
So why the hang up if these same principles are applied to sex? You claim it is because it is religious, but we do the same thing with smoking and nothing religious is involved there.
Also with HIV, as you noted, we have had massive education programs, passed out freely anything that might help prevent the spread and even developed and approved multiple medicines to deal with the symptoms of HIV. All it did was briefly lower the risky behavior and allow the rate to resume its rise later.
So the real issue is that the behavior must be addressed as well. Dimissing it claiming religiousness won't change that fact.
People don't have a fifty year long view on their actions, a girl of 17 having sex with 500 sexual partners isn't going to give a rats ass about how that sex is going to affect her when she is 67. Maybe when she is 20 (and we now have the case of HIV) but not when she is 67.
There are people that have a long view on their actions and age can be a factor in that. However I know plenty of 45 year olds who still can't see past the end of the week. We can think a pill or a shot is going to fix this, but the truth is until people do take a long view, more people are going to die.
Unintended consequences can only reasonably be argued when the individual (not external society) feels a credible threat from an action they perform or not. A 50 year away threat is hardly credible...
Education can fix this shortsightedness. If it can't then a shot or vaccine won't either. Look the vaccine in question only addresses 3 out of 15 viral variants. Those three account for 70% of infections and cancers NOW, but do you seriously think the remaining 30% won't exist? What do we do about them? Worse still does it become harder to address that remaining 30% since it involves radically more dollars and in the public view the problem has been "solved."
Sex is a procreative and recreational activity -- it is an essential component of most human relationships, otherwise we wouldn't focus on it as a society as much as we do, tie it up into love as much as we do, and look back on those experiences with delight (or sometimes embarrassment).
Again a nice platitude, but I really don't think the viruses or bacteria give a shit. They are going to go on doing what they do and even evolve and change how they do it. If you seriously want to address the problem, you have to address the behavior.