Wingnuttery Kills
PZ Myers points us to this story about efforts by right-wing crazies to block a mandatory vaccination program for cervical cancer:
A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity. […]
The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.
Yes, you read that correctly- social conservatives want to deny their children protection from cervical cancer for fear that they might start boinking before marriage.
PZ comments:
Here’s a disease that kills about a third of the women who get it. It turns their reproductive tract into a nest of tumors that can spread and shut down the kidneys, metastasize to the lungs, the gut, everywhere, that sterilizes them and can cause horrible agony. The treatment involves radical hysterectomy, bilateral adnexectomy and lymphadenectomy, words I’d rather my family never even have to learn.
And it’s preventable.
Yet these sick, evil people want to be able to hold this horrible disease as a threat to their daughters, their friends’ daughters, their neighbors’ daughters?they want to be able to say to their kids, “If you don’t obey my rules, your womb will rot and dribble out your private parts, and you’ll thrash in pain for a while before you die and go to hell.” They like the idea of a disease that they can say is not prevented by condoms, so they can continue to preach abstinence with threats.
In typical fashion, Professor Myers pulls no punches. He comes right out and calls these people sick and evil, which they assuredly are.
But to play devil’s advocate, I sometimes wonder if it’s really wise to force these nutcases to vaccinate their children. When you’re dealing with people who are completely devoid of reason, it’s virtually impossible to alter their behavior, no matter how insane- witness efforts by “Bikers’ Rights” organizations to repeal mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. Indeed, any heavy-handed effort to prevent people from doing stupid things often results in the kind of angry populist backlash that puts opportunistic crooks like Tom DeLay in positions of power.
The evil libertarian/Social Darwinist in me says, “Hey, if they want to increase their children’s risk of contracting diseases and/or make them unemployable idiots by teaching them creationism, fine. Just as long as I don’t have to pay their welfare or Medicaid checks, let them do as they please.” A variation of this idea was recently outlined in this Ronald Bailey piece about efforts to add Intelligent Design to biology curriculums:
So what to do? It is not the role of public schools to confirm the religious beliefs of their students. Parents who want their children to benefit from the latest findings of science would reasonably be irked if evolutionary biology were expunged from the public school curriculum. There is another way around this conundrum. Get rid of public schools. Give parents vouchers and let them choose the schools to which to send their children. Fundamentalists can send their kids to schools that teach that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. Science geeks can send their kids to technoschools that teach them how to splice genes to make purple mice. This proposal lowers political and social conflict, and eventually those made fitter in the struggle for life by better education will win. At least that’s my theory.
Of course, this argument doesn’t hold up if you believe that children shouldn’t be made to suffer for having idiot parents. Plus, a laissez-faire education policy is only tenable if we eliminate welfare programs that ensure the less fortunate (or in this case, the poorly educated) don’t completely fall through the cracks. There’s no way I could consider myself a good liberal and endorse either of these sentiments.
Even so, these sorts of things do represent political liabilities. What’s the best way for the government to ensure the general welfare of its citizens without seeming like an overbearing nanny state?
Overbearing nanny state? We already require tons of vaccinations for germs. Why should it be different if the germs affect your reproductive organs?
What would they say about an AIDS vaccine? Herpes?
HWJV – How Would Jesus Vaccinate?
Anon-
I agree that forcing people to vaccinate their children isn’t a “nanny state” policy. In fact, it’s an entirely sensible policy. The problem is, there’s a significantly large portion of the population that goes completely apeshit over stuff like this, so significant that they get appointed to positions of power within the GOP. What are the best ways of mitigating their influence, other than letting them start their own country?
The anti-vaxxers are gaining in strength for even other non sex bugs. I have a little niece that hasn’t been vaxxed (thanks bullshit state of Kentucky) and it really gets to me. How many tragedies do we need for these people to reject their grab-bag personal health care religions-
If we all just wore turtlenecks, no one would ever have to suffer.
PP- What hasn’t she been vaxxed against? And is it because the state bans such vaccinations in school, or because her parents don’t want her vaxxed?
But to play devil’s advocate, I sometimes wonder if it’s really wise to force these nutcases to vaccinate their children.
Yeah, it is. The successful vaccination of a population requires you vaccinate as many people as possible. All vaccines have a 1-2%+ failure rate, and the best defense for those who can’t be immunised is for everyone around them to be treated. The fundies won’t just be killing themselves and their children, but a goodly swathe of everyone elses’.
If fundies are raising their children so poorly that reducing the risk of cervical cancer will cause them to become more promiscuous then that is their own fault as incompetent parents whose fear mongery has failed to instill a proper sense of respect, intimacy and compassion for other people and themselves.
Re: that bizarre voucher system; we as a society have a duty to educate every generation to a reasonable level. Preventing children from learning basic scientific facts and basic human knowledge constitutes child negligence just as much as preventing them from learning the local language; ignorance and antiintellectualism is extremely harmful to society as well as the children themselves. It will cripple childrens’ ability to function within any society and become a hurdle to their becoming successful. Their parents’ fears and hatred of reality are pathetic counter arguments.
Christ this makes me angry.
-Schmitt.
Yeah, it is. The successful vaccination of a population requires you vaccinate as many people as possible. All vaccines have a 1-2%+ failure rate, and the best defense for those who can’t be immunised is for everyone around them to be treated. The fundies won’t just be killing themselves and their children, but a goodly swathe of everyone elses’.
That answers my question, then. Yes, then, they should be forced to vaccinate.
Re: that bizarre voucher system; we as a society have a duty to educate every generation to a reasonable level.
Once again, I agree, but there’s a large segment of the population that actually gets angry if you try to educate their kids. I’m not sure how to handle that.
Forced sterilisation I’ve no idea. Logic and reason don’t seem to work, not that politicians ever seem to have the spine to point out that these assholes are targetting women with insanely murderous policies.
-Schmitt.
Oh balls, strikethrough of ‘forced sterilisation’ didn’t work. >:
-Schmitt.
Logic and reason don’t seem to work, not that politicians ever seem to have the spine to point out that these assholes are targetting women with insanely murderous policies.
See, that’s the thing. I think the best thing is to simply call them idiots- don’t be politically correct and don’t worry about being insensitive.
This fits hand in glove with the notions of the charmless Leon Kass, or so it seems to me. Would we have the same level of outrage if it protected predominantly heterosexual males?
I dunno guys. Seems pretty obvious to me that the reason kids don’t have sex these days is because they’re afraid of getting cervical cancer. Take that fear away, and those kids will be at it liked crazed weasels.
Mandatory vaccination for HPV would be positive for these parents concerned about abstinence because vaccinating for HPV at the same time as measles, et. al. takes the stigma away. Everyone ends up vaccinated against a virus that hardly any of them are aware of, anyway, and those who wish to be vaccinated, don’t have to deal with the embarassment of, as a teen, seeing their doctor and announcing, “I want a vaccine against an STD.” Making the vaccine optional turns it into the stigmatized “I’m announcing I’m going to have sex” vaccine all the conservative parents are worried about.
It’s these crazy-ass, wing-nut parents who make me wanna say, “You want your kids stupid and sick? You go right ahead!”
But, Schmitt’s right…it’s not the kids’ fault and the entire community would suffer the consequences.
“MY daughter doesn’t NEED the vaccine. I’m 100% certain that on her wedding night, she’ll be a virgin. And I’m 100% certain that her husband will ALSO be a virgin. And if, God forbid, she’s raped, I’m 100% certain the rapist will be a virgin too.”
Fucking morons.
I’m going to tell you straight up:
This vaccine would render gynecology, a profession of perverted jews, obsolete. That is why right wingers don’t like it.
Thing is Christians, especially Christian men, WANT their women to be violated by a holyier, god-among-us JEW. Christians worship jews.
Jews dominate the media, they need their money, that is why this is an issue. What the jew dosen’t like, offends god to a Christian.
Jews dominate the media, they need their money, that is why this is an issue. What the jew dosen’t like, offends god to a Christian.
Where are we getting these nutcases from?
First I want to apologize to those of you who were having so much fun with my song, Great Sex Can Ruin Your Life. The reason you no longer have access to that song—the reason you are not presently free to kick it around, is that it is presently under construction, thanks to one person among hundreds of you that actually juxtaposed the terms “constructive” and “criticism,” and then offered just that.
As for the vaccine issue, how many of you believe that sexual promiscuity among teen-agers presents no health threat? How about a very insignificant health threat? Furthermore, how many of you seriously believe that social conservatives are the science-abhoring, health-“unconscious” scrooges they are made out to be by the media? Sadly, Halloween is over. It’s time to stop scaring people about the ghostly GOP goblins and ghastly GOP ghouls. How many of you seriously believe that the drug companies have no investment in pushing their vaccines on groups representing the lowest possible age just so they can pad their bloated bank accounts? Instead of demonizing the right (or the left, for that matter, for all of you fellow trolls out there), why don’t the left and right unite, find some common ground on this issue, and then move forward together? Hey, even the Beatles shared their secret wish to unite with right-wingers. Consider the line: “Come together, RIGHT, now, over me.”
As for the vaccine issue, how many of you believe that sexual promiscuity among teen-agers presents no health threat?
No one said that. But we also doubt that getting vaccinated for cervical cancer will lead to promiscuous sex among teens. There are other reasons to abstain besides getting a disease, you know- so why not protect people from infection?
Furthermore, how many of you seriously believe that social conservatives are the science-abhoring, health-“unconscious” scrooges they are made out to be by the media?
They generally are. Look at Focus on the Family and the American Family Association- they generally promote whatever brand of creationism happens to be popular at the moment.
This vaccine would render gynecology … obsolete
Of course it would, because genital warts and cervical cancer are the only things that can go wrong. The remainder is not worthy of comment.
It would put an end to the use of nothing less then medieval torture devices on 12 year old shiksa goyim for their “good”.
It would put an end to the use of nothing less then medieval torture devices on 12 year old shiksa goyim for their “good”.
Kalki? WTF are you talking about? And how did you find our site?
I honestly share your intitial doubt to some degree, Brad, but folks on the right don’t like their fears immediately invalidated or abruptly dismissed any more than those on the left (or, on the right, in my case) like their doubts about the legitimacy of those fears, immediately invalidated or abruptly dismissed. Nobody likes to feel like an idiot for having an opinion, even if that opinion may seem to some to be idiotic by someone who has adopted a different perspective. I suggest the right and the left acknowledge each others concerns and work out a compromise.
As for Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association, even if they do promote whatever brand of creationism is popular at the time, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they intend any ill will or that they are evil human beings. Your point is well taken however. Too many people on the right are so self-conscious and defensive about not sounding scientific, that they put the horse before the cart and start spouting off using pseudo-scientific jargon and hackneyed cliches. The problem, as I see it is that arguments involving creation vs. evolution should be primarily based on philosophical principles. Without a solid philosophical foundation, all science becomes pseudo-science and all arguments end up imploding.
While I am loathe to call these individuals “evil”, since such a use truly lessens the meaning of that term, those pushing against a mandatory protection are pretty foolish.
Disease is disease- we can’t simply let it go on because it, theoretically (and I doubt HPV is big reason for abstainance) would encourage teens to have sex.
These same people, I imagine, would refuse manditory AIDS vaccines because it would “encourage gay sex”. And that’s just crazy.
good one, dr. blt! your sarcastic imitation of a right-winger is the best!
As for the vaccine issue, how many of you believe that sexual promiscuity among teen-agers presents no health threat?
Of course it presents a health risk. So why try to increase that health threat by limiting education to abstinence only, by limiting access to the morning after pill, by trying to limit access to condoms and other contraceptives, by trying to remove the option for abortion (particularly partial birth abortion, which is mainly performed when the ongoing pregnancy would endanger the health or life of the mother, and is attacked almost purely because of how icky it is.) And they do it not only in America but abroad: Catholics particularly would have Uganda’s successful ABC programme stripped of the critical Condom section.
I agree wholeheartedly that promiscuity poses serious health (and other) problems. What I disagree with is how some people are quite willing to kill others to make the political point that they are against it, of which this latest example is an extremely blatant symptom. Good show chaps.
As for Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association, even if they do promote whatever brand of creationism is popular at the time, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they intend any ill will or that they are evil human beings.
Let us assume that they are simply ignorant then and determined to ignore reality. This hardly ameliorates the fact that they promote policies based on and despite such ignorance. If they do not know what they are talking about they should not try to claim false authority. They are quite willing to make false claims such as the aforementioned one that innoculation against cervical cancer will lead to greater sexual activity amongst children. They lie.
Incidentally most of the antivaccine lot are left wing or libertarian. Religious politicians have just happened to find a nice bandwagon to hop on.
Without a solid philosophical foundation, all science becomes pseudo-science and all arguments end up imploding.
Science has a solid philisophical foundation. The problem comes when creationists try to claim that biology should be made exempt from such standards. Behe’s being forced to admit at Dover that astrology would fall under his ridiculous rubrick for science is an excellent example of this.
-Schmitt.
Brad..
Regarding vaccinations in Kentucky: While our state requires all children enrolled in public schools to have a current vaccination certificate, there is an exception for medical/religious reasons. If a parent is willing to sign an affidavidt that their religion forbids vaccinations, their children are allowed to attend our public schools.
One nitpick in an otherwise fascinating post, Schmitt-
It’s the Catholic Church that would like to eliminate the birth control-implement part of the Uganda (and others) AIDS program.
Catholics like myself, and I suspect a decently sized majority, would prefer condom usage to an STI or abortion. Sometimes we have to comprimise between the lesser of two sins… I can only hope the Church will appriciate that and stick to calling for abstinace and refusing to pay themselves for such devices as opposed to actively and loudly condemning others for using them.
I know what you were getting at, but it’s important to make the distinction between the Church hierarchy and it’s actual members.
Agreed. Thank you Gavin.
-Schmitt.
Oh, bugger. Thank you Guinness Guy, even.
Last time I post at 4 in the morning.
-Schmitt.
Worry not- here at S,N! posting under the influence, be it sleep or alchohol, is an institution in of itself.
Super sexually repressed Christian woman are actually quite good in the sack. You just have to leave before the praying for forgiveness starts.
dk, not only is Dr. BLT real (and really verbose), he has an astounding ability to COMPLETELY MISS THE FREAKIN’ POINT. Opponents of the vaccine are admitting to two things: 1. They believe that premarital sex should be punishable by death, and 2. they’re perfectly willing to gamble with their own children’s lives to show their comittment to such a belief.
Being a liberal does not obligate one to be tolerant of ideas so thoroughly stupid and reprehensible, anymore the being a conservative should obligate one to defend them.
Call me dense, but I just don’t see the connection between sex and cervical cancer.
Is it that you can’t get cervical cancer if you are a virgin?
random guy – HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease, can lead to cervical cancer if not treated soon enough. It’s not the only cause of cervical cancer, but it is a common one. It’s one of the most treatable forms of cancer, but a lot of women don’t get their yearly Pap smears. As someone who caught the abnormal cells in time, I am definitely for anything that can stop the suffering and deth before it happens.
Christians worship jews.
Actually, that’s just one Jew that Christians worship. But congrats on almost getting one point right in your idiotic tirade.
It would put an end to the use of nothing less then medieval torture devices on 12 year old shiksa goyim for their “good”.
He (or perhaps she) does have a point. Gynecology exams are the suck, whether non-Jewish non-Jewish or Jewish Jewish.
If that were his/her point, I’d agree with you, but it wasn’t, alas; it sucks, but it’s not torture, nor is it a way for naughty Jews to violate nice Christian ladies.
Condoms are largely ineffective in preventing the transmission of human papilloma virus. So even if someone’s virgin daughter marries a guy who has never actually penetrated another person, the guy could carry HPV. This entirely sensible vaccine–and the first genuine preventative to cancer that comes in vaccine form–naturally inflames the wingnuts in places that really flare up at the prospect of other people having sex. Especially sex that does not result in pregnancy, STDs, cancer, and being flung into the fiery pit.
that doesn’t necessarily mean that they intend any ill will or that they are evil human beings.
sorry Dr. BLT but believing that people should die because they had sex is in fact a defining example of “ill will”, and I personally will go so far as to say it is “evil” as well.
Kathleen, maybe I’m missing something here. Who was it who said that people should die because they had sex? Some women who have had several abortions may believe that people (the admittedly somewhat amorphous, little people living inside of them) should die because they (the women),had sex, but I’m certain that this is not the position of Focus on the Family.
I don’t believe it would be entirely correct to characterize their position as “wanting people to have sex to die”. They believe that by having that disease as a deterrant, people won’t engage in pre-marital sex. They aren’t against having the vaccine at all- they just think that making their children immune will encourage their kids to have premarital sex (a stupid premise, I know, though I think it’s their right as a parent to set down such values as abstinence so long as they are relying on their parents).
It would be a gross and perhaps dishonest over-simplifacation to say “they want people to die”- they don’t want their kids to have pre-marital sex. Again- the premise is stupid, since HPV isn’t probably big on the kids’ list of reasons not to have sex.
You make a valid point GuinnessGuy. But people over-state things for a reason. It makes for great propagnda, and it is instrumental in preserving a cultural climate characterized by divisiveness. As long as people are ideologically divided, they feel secure. They are able to compartmentalize the world and see people and issues in black and white terms. For the ambiguity intolerable among us, seeing the world as anything other than black and white or left and right, can be very threatening.
I meant to say “…ambiguity intolerant…”
Nah, they want their kids to die, better for jesus to raise ’em.
Christianity is the most anti-nature, anti-instinct, anti-community, anti-family and anti-genealogy belief system out there.
Christianity wants nothing to do with the survival of the next generation and thereafter.
Christianity is the most anti-nature, anti-instinct, anti-community, anti-family and anti-genealogy belief system out there.
How so? That’s a rather broad statement to make without providing any evidence whatsoever. If that is the attitude, how is it that the religion has persisted for nearly 2000 years- were we to take your statement at face value, then it would be logical to reason that they would have died out by now, or at least become a small, insular, community, like the Zoroastrians or the Amish.
And “anti-genealogy”? I had no idea that Christians were so violently opposed to the study of family histories.
Christianity is akin to heroin, it has been sold in an increasingly purer, more jewish form that non-semitic Europeans can’t handle. A pure injection of Christian Israeli asskissery into the veins of the American congress has taken 2000 lives and counting.
Once again- how so?
Some backup to those assertations would be simply delightful.
GuinnessGuy, the person you are addressing speaks from a position of ignorance, but he or she may have had a bad experience with christians who were not close to Christ. I used to be one of those, and I’m still struggling in my faith as a result. I was one who believed that my faith was something that could be packaged and sold, or pushed on people like heroine. This is actually a perversion of Christianity. By selling it, or pushing it on others, we cheapen the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heroine, in its purest form, puts people in bondage. Christianity, in its purest form frees people from bondage. Moreover, you can put a price tag on a product, but having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is priceless. I rarely talk to Jesus, and I rarely “come boldly before the throne of grace,” as the scriptures command Christians to do. I haven’t even claimed a fraction of my inheritance as a child of God. This is because I’m still poisoned by, and, in bondage to the cheap, artificial brand of Christianity that somebody once sold me and pushed upon me. Like U2 said in a song, “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For,” even though it just happens to be staring me in the face.
I’m well aware of that, Doc. You see, I’m taking a rather Socratic approach, which is intended to either make the individual in question think for once, or at the very least annoy him enough to shut up. This individual’s trolling is not up to S,N! standards- it’s quite tired.
Presumably one could discuss the difference between Christian and Jewish reproductive ethics intelligibly, if one thought it was relevant, but somehow I don’t see Kalki etc doing that. Incidentally, Kalki is the name of the Hindu equivalent of the anti-Christ (putting it rather ethnocentrically, of course).
Looks like you’ve been doing your homework, Rowan. And GuinessGuy, keep going with the Socratic approach. I believe it’s working. It’s never failed for me anytime I’ve used it with my students. In fact, it’s often been a real life saver every time I didn’t have the opportunity to complete a lesson plan.
(the admittedly somewhat amorphous, little people living inside of them)
Yeah, guys. It’s time to start showing a little respect for the spermatozoan-Americans living amongst us. Every time you rub one out, the baby Jesus cries.
Why do you make the baby Jesus cry?
Jillian, where have you been? Yes, I know Christmas is coming, and I’m as sentimental as the next guy (maybe more) when it comes to Christmas tradition. But, c’mon, Jillian, in case you hadn’t noticed, baby Jesus has already grown up, died, risen and ensconsed Himself on His throne of grace in heaven. He still cries though no matter how amorphous the developing fetus may be (the ‘no tears in heaven’ promise doesn’t apply to Him). So what are your criterion for deciding when life begins? What is your game plan when it comes to playing God? At this point it strikes rather arbitrary. How big does a fetus have to be before you’ll acknowledge it as a living organism?
What are your criteria for deciding when a woman is permitted to make decisions? How human does a woman have to be before you’ll acknowledge her as an autonomous, sentient person with the right to control her own body instead of a walking fetus repository?
Human enough to acknowledge that the whole world doesn’t revolve around her, and human enough to take responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life.
human enough to take responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life.
Dr – so it’s you that’s been going around doing it all. You sly damned fox, you.
-Schmitt.
Hey, Schmitt, somebody around here has to do his part to promote a culture of life š
How big does a fetus have to be before you’ll acknowledge it as a living organism?
Which “living organisms” am I supposed to be fretting over? I had a lovely pork loin for dinner tonight, and I washed my hands with antibacterial soap after dinner. Then I scratched the spot on my shin where I nicked myself shaving the other day, and removed a microscopic layer of skin cells. I figure I’ve killed off ten or fifteen trillion living organisms today. What’s your point?
And who said anything about fetuses? I’m speaking out on behalf of the spermatozoan-American, silly.
That’s some pretty fancy skirting around the issue, Jillian, but you still haven’t answered my question. I answered your question directly. Let’s see if you have the courage to answer mine just as honestly and directly.
I absolutely did. What part didn’t you understand?
You, however, did NOT answer my question. I fear it’s too complicated for you, so I’ll simplify it.
Are sperm alive?
jillian, every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Um, Doc? I don’t mean to jump down your throat, I really don’t want to be accused of being a “Spelling Gestapo”-person or anything, but…
The word you used there, “Heroine,” is inappropriate. “Heroine” is a hero of the female gender, as in “superheroine.” I suspect you were referring to the opiate drug, “heroin.” No “e.” “Heroine”=good. “Heroin”=not good. Don’t take this as an attack–it’s just that what you wrote is rendered nonsensical written the way it was. Just trying to be helpful.
Heh- Although… some heroines are into bondage (like Wonder Woman, Queen of S&M).
Marq, no offense taken. I’ve never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, (only the second sharpest).
I humbly acknowledge my tendency to get sloppy when it comes to spelling, typos etc., but I assure you it is not out of ignorance or a lack of reverence for the English language. It is out of a burning, often admittedly unbridled, passion for shameless trolling.
Bill S., let him who has never wasted sperm throw the first stone. You’ve made your point.
Human enough to acknowledge that the whole world doesn’t revolve around her, and human enough to take responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life.
So egocentrism is sufficient grounds to require a woman to be an incubator on legs? What is the concomitant punishment for male egocentrism?
I think you’ve bought into the myth that women think an abortions is no bigger a deal than a manicure. That women think of abortions as alternative birth control. I will admit the possibility that there may be a few women out there who do think that way, though I suspect that women who have actually had abortions don’t.
Can you recognize the possibility that deciding not to carry an unwanted fetus to term and not to have an unwanted child as a result may in fact be “taking responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life”?
It is out of a burning, often admittedly unbridled, passion for shameless trolling.
With all these references to bridles and heroines putting people in bondage, I begin to suspect that herr doktor here just might be a ponyboy.
Maybe he’s one of those devout zealots that participates in coporeal mortification. Ya know, whips himself and cuts his penis with razorblades? Just a thought.
I wasn’t making a point, I was just referencing a Monty Python song.
Dan, with that response at least you are attempting to apply reason and analytical thinking rather than simply resorting to some of the adolescent smirking, scoffing and jeering that some on this site are content to hide behind. I must give you credit for that. Your response is actually quite intelligent, though your conclusions may still be false. I’ll have to get back with you on that one after I’ve had a little time to digest it.
On the other hand, with loving liberals like Timmah420 and Jillian, who needs hate-mongering bigots?
Dan, I’m back. I’m glad I had a chance to go back and read this:
So egocentrism is sufficient grounds to require a woman to be an incubator on legs? What is the concomitant punishment for male egocentrism?
I’m not going to take back my impression of you being intelligent over this but unless I am missing something, your reply really doesn’t make any sense—not when you consider the question I was responding to. As far as buying into the myth that you’ve identified, I’d simply say that I’ve had patients who have had abortions and I am well aware that most women who consider abortion, consider it only after a great deal of agonizing and obsessing about it. Admittedly, most are not careless or heartless about the prospect of ending the pregnancy in this way. That’s what makes some women so courageous who, in the end, find a way to have the baby, and to create a meaningful, loving environment for the baby against all odds.
In response your question (an intelligent one):
Can you recognize the possibility that deciding not to carry an unwanted fetus to term and not to have an unwanted child as a result may in fact be “taking responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life”?
I would have to ask you, this: What type of circumstances would you consider that would render such a decision the responsible one?
BTW, how did this thread degerate into another pointless debate about abortion? I thought the subject at hand was the anti-cervical cancer innoculation. And I have a solution to the wingnuts’ “problem” about the vaccine contributing to sluttiness! No, really! If I recall correctly, this vaccine is most effective if given relatively early in life, definitely before adolescence and well before the girl’s virginity is lost (hopefully).
OK, for those of you who are familiar with my unsavory writing “style,” you probably suspect that I’m about to go for the gross. Ha! Fooled ya! Actually…
Give the girl the vaccine as early as possible, and then don’t tell her what the shot was for! She’s too young then to comprehend sex and cervixes and things of that ilk. Then, continuing our slight policy of lying here, never tell her that she’s been immunized. You can terrorize her with gruesome tales of the wages of sin all you like, and she’ll remain a virgin until she’s 37, no problem. Having been subjected to years of sex horror stories, she’ll be bitter and frigid by then, and probably need institutionalized, but it was all for a good cause: virginity!
Or you can skip the vaccine and jealously guard her “pureness”–and hope that she’s never raped by someone with HPV. And, watch out for those child-toucher relatives of yours!
Doc, let’s go to the tape. I asked you (using language to parallel something you said):
What are your criteria for deciding when a woman is permitted to make decisions? How human does a woman have to be before you’ll acknowledge her as an autonomous, sentient person with the right to control her own body instead of a walking fetus repository?
You never answered the first question. To the second, you responded:
Human enough to acknowledge that the whole world doesn’t revolve around her, and human enough to take responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life.
From the first part, I took you to mean that if a woman thinks the world revolves around her — i.e., if she is egocentric — then she is not human enough for you to recognize her autonomy, not human enough to control her own body. The logical conclusion is that, in your view, an egocentric woman should be subject to the control of others when it comes to using her uterus. So I asked:
So egocentrism is sufficient grounds to require a woman to be an incubator on legs?
Which seems to have confused you. I hope that going to the slo-mo instant replay has cleared things up for you. Can you answer me now?
As for the second half of your initial response, about taking responsibility, I asked a simple yes-or-no question:
Can you recognize the possibility that deciding not to carry an unwanted fetus to term and not to have an unwanted child as a result may in fact be “taking responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life”?
You didn’t answer me; you simply asked me what circumstances I think would render the decision to have an abortion the responsible choice. If you can’t even imagine such a possibility, say so. If you believe that the only way to “take responsibility” for having sex is to accept and go to term with any resulting pregnancy, say so. You’ll still have to address the cases of rape and incest (not to mention contraceptive failure), but if you think that an adult woman who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is committing herself to potential motherhood, say so.
If you answer mine, I’ll answer yours.
Excellent idea, Marq!
Marq: “Heroine”=good. “Heroin”=not good.
Gladly, no! “Heroine”=good, “heroin”=very, very good.
Should men also “take responsibility for participating in an act that has the potential to produce a new life”, or does it apply only to women?
Abso-goddam-lutely- ‘swhy birth control should remain legal and widely available. Better than an abortion or contracting a STI every time.
But… marq is correct. This is about stupid wingnut crap, which I believe we all can agree is at best misguided and at worst, criminally neglegent parental values.
Arguing abortion herer, on a humor blog of all places, is a fruitless endevor.
I would add to that: If you don’t want to be a dad, guys, wear a God-damned condom if you’re the instigator of the sexual aspect relationship in question.
That should be a poster.
A humor blog? Yes, that may be, GuinnessGuy, but I was under the impression, that in at least some cases, the humor was used as a primer to launch into some hopefully productive dialogue. Though some have turned their humor into hate, others (at least a few) have used it to grease the wheels of logic and scholarly debate, centering on life and death issues.
This probably isn’t the place for scholarly debate. While many of the individuals here are well equipped for it (at least moreso than at Kos or Alternet- which has a significantly higher population of literal “death to the right!” types), it’s not the reason we come here (without disrespecting the material of our fine hosts): this is a place to point and laugh at stupidity.
GuinessGuy, well, if this is “a place to point and laugh at stupidity,” I would say some of the pointing and laughing really makes some of the pointers and some of the laughers look stupid.
Uhhh… boys and girls, as you may note from the link in the name- that wasn’t me.
And I really have a pet peeve about Sphinx (Mystery Men)-like word games.
And I find that rarely to be the case anyway. Only when our hosts throw up a turd (it happens to the best), like recovering wingnut wunderkind Kyle Williams, have I ever found that to be the case in any large number.
[mock outrage]OMG!!! Dr. BLT is a nic hijacker!! [/mock outrage] Geeze, BLT, be careful there. I don’t know if you ever post over on Little Green Snotballs, but they string up people over things like that! I hasten to point out that I am merely being observant of what they do, not inciting violence myself. Perish forbid!
It’s true… they have a rope and everything. They use their rage against Arabs very unproductively, if I might say so.
GuinnessGuy, I apologize, but I swear it was an accident. I’m not sure if I forgot to put my blog name under the space provided, so if defaulted to the name attached to the above entry, or if it’s simply a glitch in the system, but believe me, this is not something I would do intentionally. If someone has some insight into how this might have happpened and how I can prevent it in the future, I would greatly appreciate it.