L
losh14
Guest
Thanks for explaining Canadian health to Americans:
I think that Gardasil, on its own, is morally neutral. Dispensing gardasil as a public health program (programme) is likewise morally neutral unless:
a) It’s being worked in as “you can have sex safely and not worry about catching this lethal illness” (this is obviously a morally evil stance)
b) It’s being worked in with “while you are now protected from some kinds of cervical cancer, you may still catch others from unprotected sex, as well as a slew of other nasty diseases - some of which could kill you - and you could also get pregnant and have the painful choice of keeping it, giving it away or having an abortion, so just keep your pants on and avoid all that. Abstinence remains the safest and surest means of not getting into any of these situations.” (this is obviously morally good)
I oppose the mandatory vaccination of children with Gardasil as a requirement for school entry. If there is a need for my daughters to be protected against STDs in order to enter 7th grade, they sure as Bob won’t be going to that school.
This preponderance of emotional (and even carnal) thought is extraordinarily powerful but doesn’t abrogate guilt for the sin. It does render the situation less than logical, however. This is why men and women screw up their lives by delving into sex rather than take approaches that make far more sense. Thus we can’t really say that consequences are on the mind of someone in a sexual situation - the most effective thought we can hope they have is simply “this is wrong” and that while in temptation they cling to the emotional pain of being led to sin and let that pain extricate them into safety.
Or put it another way - if the logical fear of Hell isn’t going to send them running out of the bedroom, fear of a virus, however lethal, won’t prevail logically either.
In theory, Not Sure (love the name) is correct but we have to weigh how much gardasil really pushes the disposition towards sexual intercourse when the absence of gardasil acts as a detraction from intercourse, and also consider the good that comes from the vaccine. Technically the proximity of persons of the opposite gender makes sexual intercourse more likely, at least compared with their total absence, but I wouldn’t make the case for a segregated society.
Put it another way - Gardasil has one intended use, to prevent cervical cancer arising from HPV infection. Girls and boys can use it as an excuse to have unprotected premarital sex (“Hey sexy guy, I don’t care if you’re infected because I’m safe!”) but I think they’re more apt to use fifteen minutes alone as an excuse. Condoms have one intended use which is contraception. You can use them as water balloons but that’s not their intent. Lingerie is intdended to be used as erotic enticement. A negligee can be flown as a kite (briefly) but that’s not its intent. So we have to evaluate Gardasil on its most likely use, which in this case is therapeutic, unlike the condom and the negligee (unless you define therapy VERY loosely).
This does make sense as a mechanism of rationing doctors time, and it’s something we’re starting to see more in the U.S. with a shift towards having RNs and PAs do the more routine work. This “routine” work does have to be identified correctly, though, and I am concerned about the continuing reform of our health care system that could make doctors less available in the interest of cost savings. But that’s another thread…
THANK YOU.
I agree this is a pervasive apathy that leads evil ideas to be considered for public solutions. This is why the utterly abominable evil of abortion is allowed to remain as an approach to ameliorating poverty.
I think that Gardasil, on its own, is morally neutral. Dispensing gardasil as a public health program (programme) is likewise morally neutral unless:
a) It’s being worked in as “you can have sex safely and not worry about catching this lethal illness” (this is obviously a morally evil stance)
b) It’s being worked in with “while you are now protected from some kinds of cervical cancer, you may still catch others from unprotected sex, as well as a slew of other nasty diseases - some of which could kill you - and you could also get pregnant and have the painful choice of keeping it, giving it away or having an abortion, so just keep your pants on and avoid all that. Abstinence remains the safest and surest means of not getting into any of these situations.” (this is obviously morally good)
I oppose the mandatory vaccination of children with Gardasil as a requirement for school entry. If there is a need for my daughters to be protected against STDs in order to enter 7th grade, they sure as Bob won’t be going to that school.
I disagree. Having lived a very sinful life in my younger years, I can tell you there’s very little rational logic about walking into a strange girl’s bedroom with the promise of pleasure on the other side of the door. You can have posters on the wall with statistics of HIV infection and pictures of emaciated AIDS patients taking their dying breaths, but you’ll ignore it when she says “I like it better without a condom”.
This preponderance of emotional (and even carnal) thought is extraordinarily powerful but doesn’t abrogate guilt for the sin. It does render the situation less than logical, however. This is why men and women screw up their lives by delving into sex rather than take approaches that make far more sense. Thus we can’t really say that consequences are on the mind of someone in a sexual situation - the most effective thought we can hope they have is simply “this is wrong” and that while in temptation they cling to the emotional pain of being led to sin and let that pain extricate them into safety.
Or put it another way - if the logical fear of Hell isn’t going to send them running out of the bedroom, fear of a virus, however lethal, won’t prevail logically either.
I think a better case could be made for an AIDS vaccine, since cervical cancer is a relative unknown (before gardasil did any of us even know that cervical cancer could be caused by a virus that’s sexually transmitted? And that’s after how many years of sex ed in the public curriculum). And condoms, certainly.
In theory, Not Sure (love the name) is correct but we have to weigh how much gardasil really pushes the disposition towards sexual intercourse when the absence of gardasil acts as a detraction from intercourse, and also consider the good that comes from the vaccine. Technically the proximity of persons of the opposite gender makes sexual intercourse more likely, at least compared with their total absence, but I wouldn’t make the case for a segregated society.
Put it another way - Gardasil has one intended use, to prevent cervical cancer arising from HPV infection. Girls and boys can use it as an excuse to have unprotected premarital sex (“Hey sexy guy, I don’t care if you’re infected because I’m safe!”) but I think they’re more apt to use fifteen minutes alone as an excuse. Condoms have one intended use which is contraception. You can use them as water balloons but that’s not their intent. Lingerie is intdended to be used as erotic enticement. A negligee can be flown as a kite (briefly) but that’s not its intent. So we have to evaluate Gardasil on its most likely use, which in this case is therapeutic, unlike the condom and the negligee (unless you define therapy VERY loosely).
Correct, but let’s focus on those things that are most tempting - the ubiquitousness of promiscuity in the culture, an intent by secular leadership to take technological rather than moral solutions, and a continued debasement against moral leadership.
Agreed.Exactly. Which is why I find that fears of promoting promiscuity by accepting the vaccine are a tad unrealistic.
