So, as you might have heard, the FDA has approved and soon there should be available a drug that vaccinates against the several types of HPV that cause cervical cancer.
A drug that prevents cancer.
Sing from the rooftops, praise be to God and Doctors, glory day, right?
If you've seen the news reports, you may have noticed that news of the new drug is reported with a "but." What is that "but?"
But, some fear tha the drug will encourage premarital sex.
For the love of all things holy, do you see what gets equated here? The "trade off" is a shot that may prevent you from contracting cervical cancer from a very, very common STD (girls may get the shot around age 13) - so, no death from cervical cancer, versus the chance that the girl might have sex. Sex, of course, among those who have inserted a "but" in this news story, is a fate just as bad as death from cancer. Better not make sexual contact any safer. Better not stave off a form of cancer that, while not as fatal is still cancer (and could still lead to infertility, etc), because heaven help us if girls go defiling themselves with gay abandon.
How anyone can sit there and object to such a drug is beyond my comprehension. Sex is death anyway, so girls who have sex deserve what they get - even if it's cancer. Perhaps these "family" focused, morality police groups should lobby for legislation requiring the production of a valid marriage license before the medicine is given.
(p.s. yeah, 26 minutes until the results come in. I rant when I get nervous . . . .)