Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Virginity or Death - Why the FDA won't approve cervical cancer cure
porgie
Member Posts: 1,516
Virginity Or Death
This is bad. It makes absolutely no sense.
I wish the christian conservatives would get out of politics. If they don't approve of the vaccine, then don't get it for their kids. Then they can explain it to them later.
This is bad. It makes absolutely no sense.
I wish the christian conservatives would get out of politics. If they don't approve of the vaccine, then don't get it for their kids. Then they can explain it to them later.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Comments
Very interesting. This brings up an old debate I had with a friend about Religion and Government. There are many hypocritical things happening. "Religion does not have a say in government/politics", they say. Yet, before every Presidential speech, before every congressional meeting, before every Judicial review, they pray. They worship a God that is supposedly not there. The whole "separating religion from politics" debate always ends up with rational people who deserve to have strong political power being called "God-haters" by conservative Christians who believe that if it isn't in the Bible it doesn't exist.
In response to the abortion debate, it ends up being stretched hyperbolically into whether or not you condone rape or murder. There is no in-between. There are so many other things that can be said about these topics.. I don't have time right now. I will finish later. I have to go now, but I will come back later.
Now as a Christian myself the first thought that came to my mind was "Oh please don't let this be another point-the-finger-at-the-Christians" complaint. But , as usual, I read the article before thinking anthing else. The source itself seems a little biased against Christians so I am not 100% sure of the validity of the commentary. Beside that point, however, I couldn't agree more with the sentiment here.
I think over-zealous, Extreme Right-wing Christians are giving the rest of the us a bad name. They are pretty much liken to any Muslim who would strap on a bomb to blow up a schoolbus to make a bomb in the way that both parties really do ruin it for a realtively good group in general.
Don't get me confused with some "other" people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without really understanding the concept. I've been "born again" since I was a child. That's not to say I didn't spend my time waffling and questioning. I have very Biblically founded beliefs but even I see this as a stupid arguement. If parents are concerned that immunising their children is going to give them free license to run off to the first orgy...then pure and simple the parents need a little more education on being "parents". Christian or not.
Hey, I can take a handful of Ibuprofen to stop the pain but I don't go out and break my arm just because I am able to take pain meds. That line of thought is just silly, stupid, ignorant, choose your own adjective.
Right now arguements from everyside are starting to run together and sound far too alike for my taste. Not just Christians, but many other groups are using the same propganda lines of "We believe in tollerance and compassion" but in the next breath they aggressively attack a group that doesn't align itself with their way of thinking.
Just do yourselves a favour people and I cannot say this enough. When it comes to politics, religion, government, finances, or anything of that matter...ignore the loudest group. They are generally the least informed and most ignorance-based party out there that truly SHOULD NOT be the spokespeople for the groups they try to represent.
As a 24 year Christian I say give them the damned immunisation. Keep them safe. Teach them that casual sex ( to hell with the term Pre-marital ) has enough problems even WITHOUT HPV. Then let them decide. If you did your job well as a parent you have nothing to worry about. If your kids respect you they are more likely to listen. If they "fear" you they are just going to strike out when you're not looking. Sure, if this immunisation said it required the souls of 1000s of unborn babies to work, I might be a little against it. As it stands right now it's an advancement that's needed.
If you have a Fanatical Christian friend who preaches to you about this and you don't know what else to say...feel free to send them my way. They've obviously got A LOT to learn about the teachings of Christ...not the teachings of their pastor/priest/parent.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
The only thing I HAVE to correct here is an entirely misunderstood view of the Seperation of Church and State concept. It does not say that the leaders who are elected cannot make choices or decisions based on moral beliefs they have founded in their chosen religion. It covers the concept of a Instituionalised Religion being a governing body. Point in case: The Vatican. There you are looking at a blurred seperation. The Pope can overthrow many decisions chosen by the elected leaders. THAT is a lack of seperation.
However, electing a President who opts to pray before every meeting or decision has nothing to do with the Seperation of Church or State. There are prerequisites for being President of the United States of America...and none of them say "Thou shalt not have religious beliefs". That would be FAR too hard to implement. Because any formalised system of belief would be able to be considered a "religion"
Mirriam Webster defines religion as:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
In that case Atheism is a religion. Therefore you could not have any Atheistic President because their beliefs would influence their choices. I suppose Agnosticism would be the only thing you would have a hard time labelling as it can't say it adheres to any system of beliefs...it has no system. It simply "does not know".
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
The only thing I HAVE to correct here is an entirely misunderstood view of the Seperation of Church and State concept. It does not say that the leaders who are elected cannot make choices or decisions based on moral beliefs they have founded in their chosen religion. It covers the concept of a Instituionalised Religion being a governing body. Point in case: The Vatican. There you are looking at a blurred seperation. The Pope can overthrow many decisions chosen by the elected leaders. THAT is a lack of seperation.
However, electing a President who opts to pray before every meeting or decision has nothing to do with the Seperation of Church or State. There are prerequisites for being President of the United States of America...and none of them say "Thou shalt not have religious beliefs". That would be FAR too hard to implement. Because any formalised system of belief would be able to be considered a "religion"
Mirriam Webster defines religion as:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
In that case Atheism is a religion. Therefore you could not have any Atheistic President because their beliefs would influence their choices. I suppose Agnosticism would be the only thing you would have a hard time labelling as it can't say it adheres to any system of beliefs...it has no system. It simply "does not know".
The U.S. President takes a vow to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And that Constitution promises a set of rights to the citizens of the U.S.
If the Constitution promises something to the citizens that a person doesn't think he/she can defend and enforce, for whatever personal reason, then they shouldn't run for office.
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
Sex, Christians and especially a mix of both are overated!
LOL, Christians, like I ever care for the big family, Catholic or nothing else! No time for drama, theater and all that type of trash, all those tiny little priests can remain quiet IMO, the Pope is already conservative enough, there is no need for zelous minorities.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I understand that all too well. I ask you what you feel is not being defending/upheld that is COVERED in the Constitution? Remeber to tread lightly when it comes to "rights" as one persons "rights" can infringe upon anothers easily and there is NO dictated action for that situation. Whose rights take precident.
The Arguement of the Seperation of Church and State is something that is drummed out every day without most people REALLY know what it means. I suggest many of you read:
http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/05/08/the_mythical_separation_of_chruch_and_state/
Read it in depth as it's pretty laymens terms of the Establisment of Religion Clause. One comment on that board really sums it up in that it should really be called "Seperation of State and Church". Never does it say ANYWHERE that a member of a governing body CANNOT have religious beliefs that may sway his/her own personal moral opinions. That would be impossible. However, it more appropriately focuses on the fact that no state or governemtn can FORM a church or CONTROL a church. So we'll never see The Church of Latter Day Republicans or Our Chuch of the Sacred Democrat.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful," Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."
This one quote is used to say christian conservatives are against the vaccine. While I disagree with the conclusion Maher comes to, I don't see anything that indicates she's actually against giving the vaccine, in the end. She's concerned with a possible message, but even then only uses words like 'could be', or 'may.' But, no definite statement about if they vaccine should be given. I have a feeling that the author unintetionally, or intentionally jumped to a conclusion. I'd need to see the rest of Maher's comments.
although a quote from one person shouldnt represent an entire people's opinion on the subject, that quote is obviously against the vaccine. "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex" basically tells you that she is against premarital sex, and in turn the vaccine.
I think that she is whacked, and obviously needs a reality check. a vaccine wont make kids have sex even more than they are already doing. and even if it did make pre marital sex worse (as if it is actually a bad thing), the kids are safer in doing so.
I dont think that people would actually get the vaccine for their kids, if it is ever out, because parents tend to think that their kids are angels and would never have pre marital sex. People might even find it offensive, but who cares.
I went to the New Scientist and typed her name in the search feature. The whole article came up, and it seems that what she says is not taken out of context.
I think maybe it's just hard for you to believe that there are some christian conservative groups that are off their rockers when it comes to facing the realities of the world.
Not everyone adheres or desires to adhere to their religious authority. And to those people who choose to put their trust in science as opposed to religion they should have the right to have that science and it's developments available to them. They shouldn't have to go up against a religiously driven machine trying to dictate how everyone should live their lives. Especially in a country that espouses itself to be built on personal freedoms and liberties.
It's up to an individual what is best for themselves. Not a church or a bunch of religious zealots.
If they don't want their family to have this vaccine because they are so sure that their daughter will not have premarital sex and marry a husband who is a virgin too, then let them make that choice. But if other parents want to take the precaution it should be their decision to make.
The point is, that these groups are getting out of hand with their demands for certain legislation.
-------------------------------------------
Will cancer vaccine get to all women? - New Scientist
"In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose
vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour
vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent
HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading
Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it
can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as
they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving
the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because
they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher
claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of
the virus."
-------------------------------------------
I went to the New Scientist and typed her name in the search feature. The whole article came up, and it seems that what she says is not taken out of context.
I think maybe it's just hard for you to believe that there are some christian conservative groups that are off their rockers when it comes to facing the realities of the world.
Not everyone adheres or desires to adhere to their religious authority. And to those people who choose to put their trust in science as opposed to religion they should have the right to have that science and it's developments available to them. They shouldn't have to go up against a religiously driven machine trying to dictate how everyone should live their lives. Especially in a country that espouses itself to be built on personal freedoms and liberties.
It's up to an individual what is best for themselves. Not a church or a bunch of religious zealots.
If they don't want their family to have this vaccine because they are so sure that their daughter will not have premarital sex and marry a husband who is a virgin too, then let them make that choice. But if other parents want to take the precaution it should be their decision to make.
The point is, that these groups are getting out of hand with their demands for certain legislation.
-------------------------------------------
Will cancer vaccine get to all women? - New Scientist
"In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus."
-------------------------------------------
yeah, that chick is off her rocker...
The only potential problem with the vaccination that i see(other than it not getting passed or whatever) is that people probably wont want to get this vaccination for their daughters. And because it isnt as poplular an std as chlamidia(sp?) people probably wont pay any attention to it, even if it will save lives.
my $0.02
Uh, I have no personal agenda, I don't even know who Maher is. However, I still don't come to the conclusion you nor both articles are coming to. It's certainley possible, but I see no definitive statement on if the vaccine should ultimately be available. I've seen only one quote on the topic concerning the message it 'might' send. That's not enough for me to believe that ultimately she's against it's availability. Now, if there is a definitive statement, then I'd disagree with her. So yeah, it's not like I have a personal agenda for banning the vaccine. I'm just damn jaded about quotes revealing a persons final decision or thought on a matter.
----------------------------------------------------------
"In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose
vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour
vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent
HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading
Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it
can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as
they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving
the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because
they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher
claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of
the virus."
I am a Christian, I think it's pathetic Doctors want to expand their guinea pig experiments on the innocent so they can have more data to write down and discuss with their peers. The article is biased of course it says they had successful trials, good for you! Now how many failures? Things like this isn't a question of moral's except just to suck passerbys like you and me in to reading stuff like this. This is something that should be talked among professional health care practices, discussed in private with patients and, doctors. Judgement on the reporter of this is highly questionable. Everything in the article is poorly represented and, looks like it's only purpose is to stir up controversy. (hype)
Professor Hubert Farnsworth - That question is less stupid but, you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
whoever wrote that article needs extreme therapy.
rarely have I seen someone so irrefutably bitter.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
I've also noticed that these forums are plagued with militant athiests.
Now I'm adressing this next statement to the latter: THERE ARE SUCH A THING AS LEFT WING CHRISTIANS!
Believe it or not, Christianity has played a fairly big part in stem cell research as a Catholic priest was the one who founded the study of genetics.
I'd ask the previously mentioned parties to pull their heads out of their arses and look around, everything ain't black and white.
Go to the real story and read it though. The story that the commentary is referring to isn't biased.
Will cancer vaccine get to all women?
You said yourself that there are left wing christians. I think maybe you're reading some comments people make the wrong way.
For example...
If I say, "The christian conservatives need to quit trying to run this country and allow genetic research to continue." Do you just assume I'm not christian? I could be speaking as a left wing christian.
Or, what if I'm not christian but from another religious persuasion. Deism, Buddhism, or Judaism. Those don't make me an atheist, but could prompt me to write the same statement.
Not arguring one side of the coin or another here...but you DO realise that preaching "openmindedness" and calling someone's comments "stupid" or "ignorant" in the same breath is by far and above the definition of irony and hypocrisy.
Either way, I agree the article is biased as I said way back in my first post. But if anyone thinks they can write something truly devoid of biased they are just decieving themselves. Of course, a little more finess could do the writer a great amount of good.
Away from debating the context of the article it's fairly simple to get down to business:
1- If they, being the Pharmacuetical Companies, do have a possible cure I wonder why we've not heard as much about it as one would think we would. That being said, let's assume they do. Then yes, it should be used IF it is well tested. To understand my thinking here you would have to understand just how useless of an organisation I find the FDA to be.
2- If some extremist Christian group is fighting this "cure" to be able to maintain their fear card for children, they need therapy. As does anyone who listens to them. Next people will assume that giving your child a car grants them license to go on killing sprees ala GTA. This is all a matter of "abesntee parenting" which is the TRUE plague of the family structure these days, not religion. No one wants to own up and take responsibility for things. Personally, if I hear "Have you ever wanted to talk to your kids about <blank> but don't know how..." I am going to lobby for Breeding Licenses.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Not arguring one side of the coin or another here...but you DO realise that preaching "openmindedness" and calling someone's comments "stupid" or "ignorant" in the same breath is by far and above the definition of irony and hypocrisy.
If you would reread my post and your quote you will see i didnt use the word "stupid" and some of the things he said in the article show ignorance and preconception, like for example he uses way to much the word Christians, when there is diferent Christian churches that accept the use of condoms for example... and i will quote one of his sentences "Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms", well i think he should learn that not only gay men can get AIDS but anybody can get it by not using a condom... I hope i made my point as the why i found him ignorant and preconceptuous.