Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine - Page 2

I wasn't asserting my position as if it were an uncontestable fact:

What are you talking about? Social engineering on a massive scale.

On the other hand we can accept that people (teenagers) have always had sex and always will and rid this disease from the face of the earth. Let's see. Save bunches of people in the future from the terrors of cervical cancer versus female circumcision. The moral truth is that you value the "moral purity" of your teenage daughters (who will have sex with a man they aren't married to at some point in their lives -- if they haven't already) over the lives of thousands if not millions of other women.

You should weigh the pain and suffering of the women and their families when she nears her death over fear that women (of any age) will have sex with a man she isn't married to.

Another thing you should be weighing is the fact that there is no cure for the virus after you get it -- that means that men who carry it would have no natural means of having children without the fear of infecting their wives (no sex to connect the two partners, no sex to create progeny)...

Lastly. Fundies have a problem with sex before marriage. Why? I doubt anyone would say that sexual intercourse isn't a way of forming a connection with another individual. No doubt that connection is an important aspect of a productive relationship. Why the focus on marriage? White dress? Church service of dubious nature? What does the piece of paper do for you other than legally change your status?

That's a textbook example used in every econ. school out there. I think that the economists who came up with it know more about economics than you and me combined.


Explain how the opportunity cost of not developing cancer vacciness is lower than developing said vacciness.


Do you know of any such way? Because the truckloads of scientists working on these vacciness would certainly like to know.

Chris,

Do you want to stop premarital sex?

The only sure fire way is to perform female circumcision.

Yup. Those promiscuous hoars sure do deserve to get what's coming to them.

OK HARDEEHARHAR, THAT WAS NASTY!
but totally needed

I've never seen such a thing before. What is it, the man in the iron mask?

That doesn't mean it explains the whole story. It is a simple way to illustrate the concept, I agree. It doesn't mean determining opporunity costs are always so simple.




Well, if the cancer is caused by a behavior, that, if people stopped doing, then the resources used to develop the vaccine/medication for that particular thing could have been used to develop a vaccine/medicine/technology/etc. for some other thing. The cost of not having done this other thing is (at least) part of the opportunity cost.

Well it isn't random. So we can dump that moronic idea.

This proceedure does not stop premarital sex. It is performed by some people who believe that it enhances pleasure for women during intercourse.

Eh?

Oh... Should have looked for mutilation pictures of African girls....

Edit:




Ok... not as cruel procedurey as the original one... But basically a girl is sewn up so that there is just a hole large enough for urine and menstrual flow to come out -- it prevent premarital sex until the husband cuts the girl open...

This proceedure would prevent intercourse. The circumcision you've illustrated only removes skin from around the clitoris. It does not close the vaginal opening.

Sorry... I just google searched female circumcision -- the first image was the most graphic image I could find...

Wikipedia on the prevention of premarital sex by female circumcision...

If you read the wikpedia article you will see that the purpose of 'female circumcision' is to surgically expose the clitoris. Nothing to do with absinence. The proceedure is not performed in the US. It has no medical benefit.

Excuse me?

The purpose seems to be to remove or completely cover the clitoris -- in fact, for purposes diametrically opposed to exposing the clitoris...

If you read the wikipedia article, you will see the purpose is to destroy the female pleasure centers associated with sex.

Edit: The word expose, or uncover or reveal is not in the wiki...

I'm referring to the clitoridotomy. I reread the article and some of that stuff is new to me. The first picture looks like a clitoridotomy. Some people actually believe this enhances pleasure for females. The clitoridectomy I.m unfamiliar with as well as those other proceedures. Very unusual.

Ah.

I think I would be much more likely to call vaccination of every teenager to be social engineering on a massive scale.


Or we could stop ranting and actually read a bit about the claims of this inoculation. For example most forms of it treat two to three out of around 15 strains that cause this cancer. The trials are all short term and we really don't know if it will prevent anything long term. Considering that it needs to be taken before a person becomes sexually active, I think the posited age of 17 is just a bit naive.


Bunches... wow... how many is that? Does that require you to use one hand or two to count?


Pure hyperbole. The number of deaths in the United States was 3,700 and that is out of roughly 2.8 million deaths from all causes this year. Does that mean something can't be done or it should be ignored? No, but keep some perspective.


Perhaps the parties involved should weigh it as well.


You can't make the argument that sex is recreational and thus we should help people who suffer from the consequences of recreational sex, and then turn around and argue that sex is for procreation and thus we have to help those who suffered from recreational sex. It is absurd reasoning.


Lots of folks have issues with portraying sex as something that is responsibility-free. You don't have to be a fundie and you don't have to care about in or out of marriage. The reality as they say in HIV education is when you have sex with someone, you are also being exposed to everyone they had sex with for the prior five years.

This wiki article notes that 80% of all sexual active adults have been infected at one time or another. 80% infection rate is not what most people call "safe" religious or not.


Who cares about the religious aspect. From a pure public health perspective it is better to deal with this realistically. Sexual relationships with multiple partners get you an 80% infection rate. Even this vaccine only addresses the top three strains out of 15. The highest claim is that it might stop 70% of the cancer causing viruses if administered basically at the onset of puberty and even this is not known long term.

Even if the virus is 100% safe it is nothing more than a band-aid on a deeper problem. People claiming this might cause people to ignore the deeper problem have a legitimate claim and dismissing those contentions as being exclusively religious or "fundie" is just a way to avoid thinking.

Nick

They need to get laid.

Sex isn't necessarily "responsibility-free" if you eradicate the diseases that sometimes result from it. People shouldn't have to pay *those* kinds of consequences for a private, consensual, and enjoyable activity like sex-- especially if vaccines exist to help safeguard against them. No, I know very few people who don't get personally involved and attached to their sexual partner. And I have a bit of distaste for those who enjoy casual sex outside a relationship because I, myself, tend to become attached. So in most cases you'll always have that responsibility to your partner-- the only responsibility people should have to worry about when having sex. Ideally.

Da-daa!

I can see circumstances where a girl of seventeen might engage in a monogamous, stable relationship outside of marriage that involves HAVING SEX, responsibly and frequently.

This insults religiously-inspired prejudices and culturally-specific guilt that I want to see imposed on everyone else, regardless of the health consequences.

I need a blowjob.

This whole no-sex-before-marriage nonsense is predicated on the ideas that (a) Young People can't be trusted to know what's good for them and that (b) something as wonderful as shagging should be infused with guilt so that a bunch of never-had-a-blowjobs can feel less jealous.

You'll need to buy me dinner and two drinks first, Shawn.


Look, you need to remove the "he might be coming from a religious angle" of this from your reasoning. The best ways to transmit bacteria and viruses have been best for far longer than our concerns about sexual mores and whether have arisen from philosphical or religious purposes. If you thought that using anti-bacterial soup smacked too much of a religious "cleansing ritual" that is your own damn fault and wouldn't change the fact washing is better than not washing.


You aren't working against some religious bias. You are now working against Mother Nature/Evolution. It is really clear that many types of bacteria and viruses have evolved to be transmitted sexually because it ia a great means of spreading. A couple of warm areas, skin to skin and fluid to fluid contact, all for a prolonged state. (well prolonged for me buddy, you'll have to speak for yourself)

If we endorse science and evolution it is clear that other viruses and bacteria are going to evolve to be transmitted via sex because it is a great way to insure their survival. This discussion is occuring in other areas with antibiotic use and cultural cleanliness traits. Sex can't be exempt from the discussion simply because it feels good and we want to do so.


That is all good and well, but honestly, I don't think the viruses and bacteria give a shit.

Nick

Nick, this debate is stupid....

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.

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).

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. 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.

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...

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).

Wow, this is truly amazing. If there was a news story saying "liberals say people shouldn't stick sharp knives in their ears," some conservatives would take the opposite position.

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.


Sorry. That thought is a bit imcomprehensible. The reasoning, from what I can fathom, seems a bit circular.


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.


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.


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.


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."


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.

Nick

Come now BRussell. You know that moral hazard would require conservatives to say that people shouldn't stick sharp knoives in their ears.

Liberals would be demanding that we fund medical treatment involving operations to restore the ears and to insure the pain from the sharp knives is minimized.

Conservatives would declare that paying for this might increase the rate at which it occurs.

Liberals would argue that Conservatives are cruel because the money is there and darn it, people are bleeding out their ears in the streets.

We could hold a telethon, movies will be made, Academy Awards will be won by rich actors portraying the plight of those bleeding out their ears....just imagine how effectively they will convey that pain and suffering.

We can dismiss disagreements about the ear bleeding as political, or as religious. We can argue about how much should be spent or done.

However in the end, honestly, to solve the problem, people would have to stop sticking sharp knives in their ears.

Nick

What is truly amazing is that you do not see the similarity between the analogy you have offered and some people (whatever their political, social or religious beliefs are) saying..."Hmm...cervical cancer is caused by early, multiple-partner sexual activity...particularly intercourse. Maybe not doing that would be a good idea."

Let me spell it out for you...

"stick sharp knives in their ears" == "early, multiple-partner sexual activity...particularly intercourse"

And...

bleading ears, punctured ear drums, permanent deafness, possible brain damage == cervical cancer

The only real differences between these two things is that one activity is a fun, pleasureable one that we'd all like to do a lot of and the other is a stupid and painful one that we think no one in their right mind would ever do. For most of us sex is the first one and poking ourselves with sharp instruments is the second.

Look.

Is it a goal to rid the world of disease or isn't it?

Does a vaccine for polio stop people from sneezing on each other which is the behavior that allows it to be transfered? No.

Does a vaccine for measles stop people from sneezing on each other which is the behavior that allows it to be transferred? No.

Does a vaccine for small pox stop people from sneezing on each other which is the behavior that allows it to be transferred?
No.

The underlying cause of all human communicative disease is behavioral. Why should we make vaccines when we can just tell people to stop sneezing?

The conservative argument here is weak.

The vaccine does less harm than having the disease around forever. Period.

No actually. The long view on HIV says that we have effectively (in the west) held the disease in static growth due to a fortuitous use of DRUGS and EDUCATION. Africa has had the EDUCATION, but not the DRUGS and look at it.


It has nothing to do with religion?

Then why are religious groups speaking out about it?

Oh.

The HIV argument should be stopped. I apologize for starting and prolonging it. There is no reasonable way to rid the world of HIV (we have no vaccine and no cure) so it is a completely different ethical and moral argument.

Interestingly, this slightly older article (and much less of a ranting opinion piece) says something a little different:


and...


It also has this:


For those freedom, choice-loving folks out there...what are your thoughts on making this mandatory?

Oh no! Other people who have the liberty to not share the same archaic values will be able to FUCK EACHOTHER without DYING OF CANCER! This MUST STOP!!!!!

That's a false dichotomy Chris. No one is saying we should vaccinate so we can tell kids to have as much sex as they want. It's the fundies who are presenting this as a choice. They say we should beware of these vaccinations.

Look, most serious illnesses today are behavioral in nature. We've done a damn good job of reducing the impact of many infectious diseases (mainly via vaccination). The top killers today are cardiovascular disease and cancer, which are caused primarily by smoking and other lifestyle issues like nutrition and exercise. Chronic illness like diabetes are also on the rise - again caused primarily by lifestyle (obesity). Only a truly immoral person would say that we shouldn't try to medically treat these diseases because it might lessen the punishment of these behaviors. And yet that's what some people are saying about this cancer.

And, honestly, I think it's no accident that the focus is sexual diseases like this cancer and HIV. Some people - mostly religiously motivated - have a real bug in their butts about sex. Combine sex with moral hazard, and it just drives some people into these ridiculous and immoral positions.

You can stop your ranting.

This isn't about "archaic values". It is a simply deductive conclusion based on medical/scientific evidence. Cervical cancer is essentially an STD. Practicing abstinence is the most effective means of avoiding STDs. What is so hard to understand about that?

No medical treatment or preventative measure should be mandatory.

Posts like these are why I keep coming to AppleInsider...

we understand that sex diseases can be avoided by stopping sex, in theory. no one is arguing against that.

but we acknowledge that sex won't stop. even promiscuity. we think of abstinence as an incomplete solution because many, if not most, people will not practice it. similar to how this vaccine would be completely ineffective if no one were to use it.

Since when is science important, and, in that effect, an argument, conservatives use?

I thought science could be wrong, and scientists are all liberal pussies? That's what I hear when it comes to religious dogma anyway. But when it suits their agenda to use science as a barometer... oh... I don't know...

I understand that. However, I notice this reasoning doesn't (as far as I know anyway) get applied to anything else. So let's try it with one to see how it sounds:

Chris does have a valid issue here as many vaccinations are required before children can enter public and private school.

A big point being overlooked is that this (abstinence vs. vaccination) isn't an either or proposition. Both can and should be practiced together.

I would be for HPV vaccination as a part of the childhood schedule but leave it elective and not require it for school admission. This is how Hep B is currently practiced.

Abstinence is the sexual equivalent of avoiding security issues by disabling AirPort and unplugging all network cables. It's completely impractical, unrealistic and unnecessary. Better solutions exist, and so far I haven't seen a single rational reason in this thread not to use them (e.g., in this case, the particular vaccine being discussed).