[Old Man G Funk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801450.html

 

[Andyman_1970]

I like this from God's politics:

decidedly pro-family, pro-life (meaning they really want to lower the abortion rate)

Implication being that lower income people actually have access to services so that they aren't put in a position that they have to get an abortion.

It's interesting that lowering the abortion rate isn't as big a concern for the religious right as is making sure people stop having sex........

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It's interesting that lowering the abortion rate isn't as big a concern for the religious right as is making sure people stop having sex........

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Transcend]

I like this from God's politics:



Implication being that lower income people actually have access to services so that they aren't put in a position that they have to get an abortion.

It's interesting that lowering the abortion rate isn't as big a concern for the religious right as is making sure people stop having sex........

Shouldn't really surprise you. They are trying to ban sex ed and teach only abstinence. C'mon now, every parent knows that if you tell kids NOT to do something, they are going to do it. Why not make sure that when they DO do it, they are safe?

Don't drive your car like a maniac, but do up your seatbelt when you get in Mr 16 year old with a riced out civic..

edit: I taipe gud

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Shoudln't really surprise you. They are trying to ban sex ed and teahc only abstinence. C'mon now, every parent knows that if you tell kids NOT to do something, they are going to do it. Why not make sure that when they DO do it, they are safe?

Don't drive your car like a maniac, but do up your seatbelt when you get in Mr 16 year old with a riced out civic..

That's probably the worst part. In teaching abstinence only (which studies have shown to be ineffective) we deny knowledge to our children. Knowledge is power (sounds like a GI Joe cartoon) and teaching our kids the things they need to know in life is certainly more beneficial than hiding them away from things, especially things that they will find out anyway.

 

[MudGrrl]

and teaching our kids the things they need to know in life is certainly more beneficial than hiding them away from things, especially things that they will find out anyway.

yep. tell kids the truth.

there's no use keeping information or feeding them the wrong information... they'll find a source that they feel they can trust...and it may not be a good source.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

On a related note, here's an op-ed from someone who resigned from the FDA over their misuse of science.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801027.html

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm all for abstinence primarily, but realistically if we are going to reduce the number of abortions then people who are at the greatest risk of a) having sex without b/c and b) would be more inclined due to economic reasons to have an abortion need to be educated and provided the appropriate services to reduce said abortions.

It's kind of like some Christians I know who are "pro life" (which BTW I am) but only apply it to fetus' and not say capital punishment.....so they're really not "pro life" per se they're "anti abortion". IMO that is hypocritical.

 

[Transcend]

I'm all for abstinence primarily, but realistically if we are going to reduce the number of abortions then people who are at the greatest risk of a) having sex without b/c and b) would be more inclined due to economic reasons to have an abortion need to be educated and provided the appropriate services to reduce said abortions.

It's kind of like some Christians I know who are "pro life" (which BTW I am) but only apply it to fetus' and not say capital punishment.....so they're really not "pro life" per se they're "anti abortion". IMO that is hypocritical.

Abortions aren't even the most important part. Peopla re going to have sex, period. Why not keep them from getting all the nasty diseases out there by informing them of how they can be safe?

I just don't get how keeping information from one of the highest risk groups (promiscous teens) is going to make things better?

 

[Changleen]

****in religion! Dumbass mofos. GRRRR!

 

[Andyman_1970]

Abortions aren't even the most important part. Peopla re going to have sex, period. Why not keep them from getting all the nasty diseases out there by informing them of how they can be safe?

I just don't get how keeping information from one of the highest risk groups (promiscous teens) is going to make things better?

I'm glad you brought this up, I just read this article that I agree with (from www.sojo.net)

The Religious Right's vaccination vexation
by David Batstone

When it comes to teen sex, all parents hope and pray that their children make wise choices. Children as young as 12 or 13 weigh decisions with consequences that could impact the rest of their lives in a dramatic way. At this point in the conversation our teenage children roll their eyes, but parents know the risks to be real.


Parental anxiety therefore is unavoidable, all the more so because they realize that the ultimate choices their teens make about sex are beyond their control. That begs a question: If a child violates the moral code that parents set, are those parents willing to put their child's life in mortal danger? Tragically, some Christians are willing to answer, "Yes."


A little-known debate is smoldering at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that may burst soon into a major fire. Two pharmaceutical companies - Merck and GlaxoSmithKline - have designed a cervical cancer vaccine. In clinical trials the Merck drug, Gardasil, is proving to be up to 100% effective in fighting the dominant strain of the virus causing cervical cancer. The pharmaceutical companies and a growing movement of public health advocates want all girls to be inoculated with the vaccine as they presently are for other high-risk viruses.



The Family Research Council is leading a charge of Religious Right groups to halt any such national inoculation program. Their resistance is driven by fear more than common sense. The human papilloma virus (HPV) that generates cervical cancer is most typically passed along through genital contact with others. So as long as an individual does not engage in sexual intercourse, he or she should be shielded from the virus. The Religious Right bloc concludes that offering a vaccine for HPV would undercut their promotion of sexual abstinence for adolescents.


In that spirit, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fortune magazine that he would not allow his 13-year-old daughter to be inoculated. "It sends the wrong message," Perkins said. "Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence."


Globally, cervical cancer kills more than 270,000 women each year - roughly 80% of them in developing countries. The Centers for Disease Control reports that as many as 3,700 women in the U.S. died of cervical cancer last year, and tens of thousands more had their lives completely transformed by a radical treatment regimen for the disease. The majority of those women are African-American or Hispanic, and poor.


Religious Right groups are not seeking to ban the drug. They simply do not want the vaccine to be slotted as an inoculation that every child receives as they presently do for polio and smallpox.


Because these groups link cervical cancer so intimately with illicit sexual activity, a mandated vaccination feels to them like a family values choice would be imposed upon them by the state.


We abide by public health standards for the sake of the common good, of course. In the U.S., we require motorists to wear seat belts and children to be inoculated. It would be equally shortsighted to oppose a vaccine for HIV if one existed. So the question here is whether the transmission of HPV is a universal public health risk. The question of state imposition is a straw man argument.


But more importantly, the Religious Right is wrong to so closely tie cervical cancer to promiscuity. A woman might be chaste her entire life, then marry and pick up the virus from her husband. It also is more than a bit naïve to believe that a child will abandon abstinence once they have received a vaccine. If a teen's only deterrent for engaging in sexual activity is a fear of communicable diseases, they are likely to turn to sex with protective devices.


I would go a step further and challenge the Religious Right to temper their moral commitments with grace. It is the right and duty for parents to set a moral path for their children. It pains me that so many parents abdicate that responsibility. But we also offer protection and mercy for lapses in judgment.


It is a daring journey raising children. It is our role to guide, model, and protect. Parents teach values, but kids make the decisions. I would hope that love and grace await our children at each destination.

 

[sanjuro]

Well, people can always move to Catholic City...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Shouldn't really surprise you. They are trying to ban sex ed and teach only abstinence. C'mon now, every parent knows that if you tell kids NOT to do something, they are going to do it. Why not make sure that when they DO do it, they are safe?

Wait, wouldnt that mean that they would do it unsafe?

 

[Transcend]

Holy crap, those fundies need to get out from under the rock they are living under.

We can only hope darwinism will kick in sometime soon.

 

[Transcend]

Wait, wouldnt that mean that they would do it unsafe?

It's all unsafe in the eyes of a fundie.

God will strike them down with lightning anyways....except if they do it with a priest, then they are ok.

 

[Changleen]

FVCK RELIGION

 

[Old Man G Funk]

FVCK RELIGION

I didn't know she puts out...of course if she does, doesn't that make her a whore?