Teenage promiscuity increases as threat of cancer decreases (ummm, ok)
Via indigoskynet:
Members of the Religious Right are now concerned that a vaccine that prevents the virus that leads to cervical cancer will encourage teenagers to be more promiscuous.
Doctors have suggested that the vaccine become one of the many required to attend public school in the United States to encourage its widespread use. Conservatives are against this requirement since they're scared that removing the fear of cancer (well, specifically, the fear of HPV, a sexually transmitted disease) will break down the barriers that currently prevent teens from having sex. Conservatives feel that discouraging pre-marital sex, and encouraging fidelity in marriage, will be the best solution to prevent the spread of HPV.
Do conservatives honestly believe that teenagers sit around thinking of all the STDs that are possible to get, and when the list is reduced by one, that they will decide to have sex when otherwise they would choose against it? Let's not forget chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, and genital herpes will still be risks for sexually active teenagers, not to mention pregnancy, or, say, disapproval from their religious parents?
If parents would like their teenagers not to have sex for religious/moral reasons, why not talk to their children about morality and religion instead of using diseases to scare them? If conservatives believe that the threat of eternal damnation, God's wrath, or parents being pissed off is not enough to scare their kids into being virgins until marriage (and if not, why not?) and there needs to be the threat of bodily harm in the form of a sexually transmitted disease, why not stress that AIDS and genital herpes, both of which continue to have no cure, are still out there? Oh that's right, in abstinence-only education, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is not mentioned at all, because that would mean talking about something besides "It's not ok to have sex, just don't do it. End of discussion." How well is that little talk going, religious parents?
Members of the Religious Right are now concerned that a vaccine that prevents the virus that leads to cervical cancer will encourage teenagers to be more promiscuous.
Doctors have suggested that the vaccine become one of the many required to attend public school in the United States to encourage its widespread use. Conservatives are against this requirement since they're scared that removing the fear of cancer (well, specifically, the fear of HPV, a sexually transmitted disease) will break down the barriers that currently prevent teens from having sex. Conservatives feel that discouraging pre-marital sex, and encouraging fidelity in marriage, will be the best solution to prevent the spread of HPV.
Do conservatives honestly believe that teenagers sit around thinking of all the STDs that are possible to get, and when the list is reduced by one, that they will decide to have sex when otherwise they would choose against it? Let's not forget chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, and genital herpes will still be risks for sexually active teenagers, not to mention pregnancy, or, say, disapproval from their religious parents?
If parents would like their teenagers not to have sex for religious/moral reasons, why not talk to their children about morality and religion instead of using diseases to scare them? If conservatives believe that the threat of eternal damnation, God's wrath, or parents being pissed off is not enough to scare their kids into being virgins until marriage (and if not, why not?) and there needs to be the threat of bodily harm in the form of a sexually transmitted disease, why not stress that AIDS and genital herpes, both of which continue to have no cure, are still out there? Oh that's right, in abstinence-only education, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is not mentioned at all, because that would mean talking about something besides "It's not ok to have sex, just don't do it. End of discussion." How well is that little talk going, religious parents?
posted by .-.lilie.-. at
3:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home