Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Lambs Gone Wild

Once again the religious right is determined to interfere in public policy, this time regarding the new HPV vaccine.

Yes, the same folks who are so quick to defend the absolute right-to-be-born of a fertilized egg are also the first to object to preventing cervical cancer in their own daughters. Makes sense from their point of view I suppose: if the little tramps want to screw around they deserve to die. How very Christian of you.

I can sort of agree with them on one point and one point only: it's a shame the government has to make mandatory what should be by all rights a matter of common sense. Therein lies the problem though, common sense is not our forte, we are a nation of assmonkeys. This leads to the question of whether or not government ought to, or may even be obligated to enact legislation for the protection of the health and welfare of it's citizens.

Up to this point the answer has been yes. Think of all the other required vaccinations. Best of luck getting your child into school without an MMR record. Nowadays government has taken the issue light years further legislating smoking, and the newest trend, eating choices. I'm not going to debate those here but my point is that I did not hear the Christian outrage over these issues.

So why is this vaccine issue different? Its different because cervical cancer is definitely linked to sexual activity. Big no-no for the Christian set most of whom would tend to see this type of disease as a judgement from god.

I defend your right to opt out and so do the lawmakers, an opt out provision is written in. If you really want to kill your offspring who am I to stop you. I don't like it but I don't see any possibility of being able to protect every idiot from themselves nor do I think it reasonable to waste immense resources trying to enforce such a course of action. We have plenty of other, more cooperative people, who could benefit from those resources. I like the more bang for my buck option, call it a business decision.

Your argument for making it optional, an "opt in" choice, does not hold water. Most people will abide with the decision that the vaccine is beneficial, making it required gives it more credibility for people who are only mildly intellectually impaired. It could potentially save thousands of lives making it a good business decision. Case closed.

Now then, I have to address your argument that giving this vaccine "gives children permission to have sex". That would be hysterically funny if it were not what you dimwits actually believe. Young people having sex is not a new,modern day phenomena. Young people have been having sex since the dawn of humankind. They have never needed permission to do so.

I understand that you've been able to put the fear of Jay-sus into at least some of your offspring to the extent that fear of eternal hellfire has overcome biological drives and hormonal overdrive thus keeping Betty Sue from sullying her precious little dirty-hole with an evil, predatory man-thing. Goodie for you. So what you're saying is that if Betty Sue gets a vaccination her foul base nature will take over and she will immediately commence to fuck like a sailor on shore leave? Interesting premise for a new video series like "Lambs of God Gone Wild" but I doubt that holds much water either. I have confidence in your fear tactics.

Go right ahead and opt your daughters out since you have no problem allowing them to get cancer and die if they dare to commit the sin of having sex and while you're at it, shut the fuck up about protecting the "right-to-life" of the unborn since you clearly do not give a shit about the sanctity of human life if it contradicts your view of how that life should be lived. It's an all or nothing issue. All life or none, you don't get to defend only the ones you choose.

Go get a new bucket because yours has a huge gaping hole in it.

LA Times

5 comments:

cls said...

I defend your right to opt out and so do the lawmakers, an opt out provision is written in. If you really want to kill your offspring who am I to stop you.

. . .

Go right ahead and opt your daughters out since you have no problem allowing them to get cancer and die if they dare to commit the sin of having sex


They would say the "sin" is limited to having sex outside of marriage. As you now, this vaccine has to be given before the girl becomes sexually active and is exposed to the virus. But what happens if the virgin daughter's newly-minted husband isn't as pure as she is and infects her on their wedding night?

What "sin" is she guilty of, other than being a woman?

Not Your Mama said...

Isn't that the point, the essentially "sinful" nature of we women?

Show me one major religion that does not treat us as nothing better than necessary, and expendable evils.

Our only value is in our "purity" which becomes non-existant as soon as we cash it in.

Women on the Verge said...

Those religions would have to be the matriarchal ones...

E

ryk said...

cls beat me to it. The virus doesn't know if you are married or not. And given these hypocrites tendency to accept the sowing of wild oats by young men with a wink and a nod, their whole justification for opposing this vaccine is just as phony as their religion.
Not Your Mama, the purity thing has always been one of the creepier parts of religion if you ask me. A virgin daughter is just a piece of property that a father can sell to the highest bidder.

Catherine said...

Earning money online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income.



All the best.