![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
crazyjaneIt's back!
For new(ish) readers, the Shit List is a series of semi-regular (well, extremely 'semi') rants about life, the universe, stupid people and whatever happens to be crossing my path at the time. There might be three or four in a week, then nothing for ages. That's the way it goes. Anyway, let's get into it, shall we?
(Since I'm cross-posting from Dreamwidth, some of the markup may be kinda broken. I'll attempt to overcome that.)
New Zealand has recently begun a roll-out of in-school vaccinations against the sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus which causes cervical cancer for girls. (A similar program has been in place here in Australia for some time now.) It's a free service, so there is no financial burden on families. The vaccine has no known side effects other than a slight fever or irritation at the injection site (which is pretty normal for vaccinations of all kinds). It's best given before a girl becomes sexually active - and here's the sticking-point, apparently.
Nearly 80 NZ schools have opted not to take up the program.
Their reason? Morals.
Yeah, you read that right. Apparently, taking steps to protect a girl from a sexually-transmitted disease is nothing more than overt permission for that girl to go out and throw herself into bed with the first person she meets. Saving a girl from the potential misery of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery and (at worst) death is unacceptable, because it would mean that she would naturally feel she is 'allowed' to immediately become both promiscuous and indiscriminate about her partners. Halving the death rate from cervical cancer is just not worth the horror.
Let's break down the logic in that. One can only contract HPV through sexual activity. The vaccine protects one from several strains of the HPV that are known to cause cancer. Being protected, the recipient of the vaccine will therefore immediately become sexually active.
Did you follow that? I didn't.
It's the same argument that's used to keep safe sex education and condoms out of schools. In fact, it's the same argument that gets thrown around by those opposed to freely-available contraception, abortion and reproductive privacy in general. For these people, sex is sin, and the wages of sin is death. In the case of the HPV vaccine, you can take that literally.
Think about it - you have the choice to protect your daughter, to ensure that she will not go through the heartache and agony of cancer. You can educate her as to her choices and her rights, so that she knows how to protect herself. Or you can tell her 'sex is bad' and fill her head with horror stories about all the terrible consequences of sex - consequences from which she could easily be protected - in the hope that she'll be too scared to set foot outside the door in a low-cut blouse. You can prevent her from becoming informed and empowered, in the hope that she will remain 'pure'.
What would you do? Yeah, me too.
I don't know whether this says more about the stupidity of those who are advancing this argument, or about their dirty minds. It's absolutely undeniable that abstinence-only sex education does not work. Maybe the rate of teen pregnancy has dropped (and even those figures are in dispute), but the rate of sexually-transmitted diseases has skyrocketed among those who have received abstinence-only education. This is the very group that are most likely to need the HPV vaccine - and they are not going to get it because some wingnuts with their minds in the gutter can't see further than their own perverted suspicions.
But hey, let's play their game for a moment. Let's assume that we can keep our daughters virginal by never allowing them to know about evil things like condoms and vaccines. Let's keep her away from high school parties, drives in the country with their boyfriends ('cos of course they're going to be heterosexual), and the Demon Drink so that she won't fall giggling into bed with some irresponsible boy. Let's even assume that we can, through the power of prayer, take away their sexual drives and curiosities. What's the worst that can happen?
The worst that can happen is that your precious jewel gets raped, you bastards.
Oh, but wait - I forgot. The kind of mind that thinks prevention=promiscuity also tends to think that even the threat of rape is not sufficient reason to protect their daughters. She gets pregnant? We can counsel her to accept that. She gets a sexually-transmitted disease? It's a shame, but if God doesn't see fit to heal her, we can counsel her to accept that. She dies? We can hold her up as an example of purity and the evils of the world.
I just do not understand the thinking of these people. How can you not do everything possible to protect your loved ones? Sure, tell them to stay away from sex until marriage, if that's your bag. They'll make up their own minds anyway. But for the love of everything that's holy, how can it possibly be wrong to plan for the worst case?!
If there are those who would gladly look the other way while their own lives were put in jeopardy, that's up to them. As stupid as I think that is, it's their informed choice, right? But no one - no one - should have the right to endanger the lives of their children, those who are in their care and who look to them for protection and wisdom.
And to those who do feel they have the right to choose fucked-up 'morals' over their children's lives and happiness - I hope those morals keep you warm at night, because if there is a judge after death, you are going to have to be nailed to the wall for it.
For new(ish) readers, the Shit List is a series of semi-regular (well, extremely 'semi') rants about life, the universe, stupid people and whatever happens to be crossing my path at the time. There might be three or four in a week, then nothing for ages. That's the way it goes. Anyway, let's get into it, shall we?
(Since I'm cross-posting from Dreamwidth, some of the markup may be kinda broken. I'll attempt to overcome that.)
New Zealand has recently begun a roll-out of in-school vaccinations against the sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus which causes cervical cancer for girls. (A similar program has been in place here in Australia for some time now.) It's a free service, so there is no financial burden on families. The vaccine has no known side effects other than a slight fever or irritation at the injection site (which is pretty normal for vaccinations of all kinds). It's best given before a girl becomes sexually active - and here's the sticking-point, apparently.
Nearly 80 NZ schools have opted not to take up the program.
Their reason? Morals.
Yeah, you read that right. Apparently, taking steps to protect a girl from a sexually-transmitted disease is nothing more than overt permission for that girl to go out and throw herself into bed with the first person she meets. Saving a girl from the potential misery of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery and (at worst) death is unacceptable, because it would mean that she would naturally feel she is 'allowed' to immediately become both promiscuous and indiscriminate about her partners. Halving the death rate from cervical cancer is just not worth the horror.
Let's break down the logic in that. One can only contract HPV through sexual activity. The vaccine protects one from several strains of the HPV that are known to cause cancer. Being protected, the recipient of the vaccine will therefore immediately become sexually active.
Did you follow that? I didn't.
It's the same argument that's used to keep safe sex education and condoms out of schools. In fact, it's the same argument that gets thrown around by those opposed to freely-available contraception, abortion and reproductive privacy in general. For these people, sex is sin, and the wages of sin is death. In the case of the HPV vaccine, you can take that literally.
Think about it - you have the choice to protect your daughter, to ensure that she will not go through the heartache and agony of cancer. You can educate her as to her choices and her rights, so that she knows how to protect herself. Or you can tell her 'sex is bad' and fill her head with horror stories about all the terrible consequences of sex - consequences from which she could easily be protected - in the hope that she'll be too scared to set foot outside the door in a low-cut blouse. You can prevent her from becoming informed and empowered, in the hope that she will remain 'pure'.
What would you do? Yeah, me too.
I don't know whether this says more about the stupidity of those who are advancing this argument, or about their dirty minds. It's absolutely undeniable that abstinence-only sex education does not work. Maybe the rate of teen pregnancy has dropped (and even those figures are in dispute), but the rate of sexually-transmitted diseases has skyrocketed among those who have received abstinence-only education. This is the very group that are most likely to need the HPV vaccine - and they are not going to get it because some wingnuts with their minds in the gutter can't see further than their own perverted suspicions.
But hey, let's play their game for a moment. Let's assume that we can keep our daughters virginal by never allowing them to know about evil things like condoms and vaccines. Let's keep her away from high school parties, drives in the country with their boyfriends ('cos of course they're going to be heterosexual), and the Demon Drink so that she won't fall giggling into bed with some irresponsible boy. Let's even assume that we can, through the power of prayer, take away their sexual drives and curiosities. What's the worst that can happen?
The worst that can happen is that your precious jewel gets raped, you bastards.
Oh, but wait - I forgot. The kind of mind that thinks prevention=promiscuity also tends to think that even the threat of rape is not sufficient reason to protect their daughters. She gets pregnant? We can counsel her to accept that. She gets a sexually-transmitted disease? It's a shame, but if God doesn't see fit to heal her, we can counsel her to accept that. She dies? We can hold her up as an example of purity and the evils of the world.
I just do not understand the thinking of these people. How can you not do everything possible to protect your loved ones? Sure, tell them to stay away from sex until marriage, if that's your bag. They'll make up their own minds anyway. But for the love of everything that's holy, how can it possibly be wrong to plan for the worst case?!
If there are those who would gladly look the other way while their own lives were put in jeopardy, that's up to them. As stupid as I think that is, it's their informed choice, right? But no one - no one - should have the right to endanger the lives of their children, those who are in their care and who look to them for protection and wisdom.
And to those who do feel they have the right to choose fucked-up 'morals' over their children's lives and happiness - I hope those morals keep you warm at night, because if there is a judge after death, you are going to have to be nailed to the wall for it.
