Cervical Cancer Vaccine: A Great Advancement
07/04/2006: Everyone should laud the recently-approved cervical cancer vaccine. It will save many lives.
Unfortunately, everyone does not. Charlotte Allen at the Independent Women’s Forum–in so many words–raises the issue that vaccinating girls will encourage promiscuity. Amanda at Pandagon responded by calling Allen a “moral monster” and Zuzu at Feministe concurred, calling Allen a “dipshit”.
Here’s my $0.02…
It is fact that 100% of cervical cancer cases are the result of the HPV virus, which is, as far as I know, 100% sexually-transmitted. Ergo, the cervical cancer vaccine helps negate a deadly cancer, the cause of which is largely due to promiscuity.
So what? It is a vaccine that prevents a deadly cancer.
That should be as celebrated as a ground-breaking AIDS drug. In the case of an AIDS sufferer, such advancements extend one’s life and quality thereof. Why is that a bad thing???
The cervical cancer vaccine should be made available, and even recommended, but should not be mandatory. (As a libertarian, I support the premise that one should be allowed to reject a vaccine of any type if he or she so chooses.)
I know that some Christian activists will excoriate me for siding with the feminists on this one, but allow me to opine from a Christian standpoint.
For the record, I neither label Allen a “moral monster” or a “dipshit”. In fact, Allen would have a valid argument if government forces a person to be vaccinated.
My case is this: even if the “moral hazard” argument has any traction, the benefit of the cervical cancer vaccine overrides any potential moral hazard created by its availability.
Let’s assume I have a teenage daughter.
Let’s also assume that I–and her mother–have provided her with a Christian upbringing, and have proactively taught her the Biblical model for sexuality.
Does that guarantee that she will be sexually pure? Hardly. I know many men and women who–in spite of such parentage–have burned themselves in that department. The best parentage guarantees nothing in that respect.
What if she hangs out with some folks and makes a very bad judgment call–which many otherwise good teens have been known to do–and “goes all the way”?
What if–heaven forbid–she is raped? What if she goes to a party and some scumbag slips GHB into her drink, and proceeds to have his way with her? (This has happened.)
Does it make any sense to withhold a life-saving vaccine from someone–irrespective of the reason for his or her potential need for it?
If you answer yes, then you have no heart. You are just like Jonah–who would have rather seen the Ninevites perish than seen them respond to God’s word and repent.
If that is how you define Christianity, then you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Actually, HPV can be gotten from merely having sex. I was diagnosed with it and when I saw the docter, she told me that having ANY sex without a condom regardless of your monogomy status still bathes the cervix in semen (obviously) and especially if a man smokes this can help cause the cell mutation that will eventually lead to cervical cancer.
One of my mother’s friends, a nurse, a devout catholic with (literally) nine children was about 45 when her papsmear came back abnormal and lo and behold she had HPV. She has been married to the same man for I dunno how long, all of the children are theirs (except for the child they adopted when it was a toddler), so I think it’s as safe as possible to assume that neither of them were having extramarital sex (when would they have had the time?).
So their point that it only happens during premarital or extramarital sex is kind of null and void. (not of course by the anecdote, but the research that medical science has done which shows that HPV can be contracted at any time throughout your life – regardless if your married or monogomous.
Katie: I certainly did not mean to imply that HPV was specifically due to promiscuity. I said it was largely due to promiscuity.
The same is also true of HIV/AIDS, in which it is possible to contract via non-sexual/non-drug means, but is largely spread through promiscuity and/or intravenous drug use.
At any rate, your point is taken, and underscores my larger point: the cervical cancer vaccine should be lauded by all, and not viewed as some “moral hazard”.
The benefits of the vaccine negate any possible moral hazard.