More on the HPV Vaccine: because it upholds the culture of life

I see on one of the recent posts where I'm grumbling about the nanny state that I'm taking a zing for my position on the HPV vaccination program. I also note that fellow conservative blogger Bob Ellis had a column in the Rapid City journal today noting that he thought it was a bad thing:
Or does it have something to do with the overall trend of late in our civilization to insulate ourselves from any consequence of sexual license? We push condoms despite their high failure rate. We laud homosexuality despite its many health risks. We fight to preserve the right to kill our unborn children — the natural result of human sexuality —- at all costs.

Given these priorities, it only makes sense that we’d push a vaccine on our children to supposedly protect them from something they could avoid anyway just by exercising restraint.

Is someone who immunizes his or her child against HPV a bad person? I don’t think so. But I do wonder what it says about us when we vaccinate against something that can be prevented by responsible behavior.
Why do I think that view is possibly incorrect and that we should encourage girls to get the vaccine? It's simple.

We oppose abortion on demand because we believe it is not fair for the life of the unborn child to be sacrificed for a momentary lapse in judgment by that unborn child's mother and father. If we're going to prohibit abortion on demand on that basis, why would we allow a similar fate for a young woman who had the same momentary lapse in judgment - except instead of her getting pregnant, she was exposed to HPV and is now at risk for a terribly tragic death from cancer.

Yes, we don't want to encourage sex before marriage. We don't encourage unintended pregnancy, either. But how can we fight to protect the unintended results of one and not the unintended results of the other?

If we oppose abortion because an unborn child should not be made to suffer a penalty for the parent's error, why shouldn't we try to protect someone from differing consequences of the same act?

Not so easy to dismiss now, is it?


Bob Ellis said…
The key and critical difference in your scenario is that the person who risked HPV by having sex outside of marriage made their own choice to take the risk.

When you kill the unborn child, they had no choice of whether to live or die. They've done nothing wrong and they're at the complete mercy of someone who wants to kill them.
PP said…
But don't we also talk about healing and forgiveness for the mother?

Cancer is a pretty harsh punishment for a mistake.
Anonymous said…
Even more compelling, PP, is the situation where the man or woman chooses to be responsible and not engage in premarital sex, then gets married to someone who did, was infected, and then infects the truly innocent spouse. In that situation, responsible living will not save the innocent spouse. The vaccine may.

I couldn't agree more with you on this issue, PP. Keep up the good fight!
lexrex said…
ellis is right. there is a critical difference between your scenarios. the unborn child hasn't made any mistakes that need to be forgiven.

however, as i've stated before, why do we have to "forgive" the woman for her mistake in the form of taxpayer subsidized vaccinations, especially when there is no proven problem that those vaccinations aren't readily available?

pp, you keep saying that abstinence isn't the issue, here, yet you keep entertaining that argument. i agree with you, to an extent, that it shouldn't be an argument. but you ignore the real issue: whether the taxpayers should have to foot the bill for this.

9:03, i agree with your scenario, too. but again, why should you be forced to pay for someone else's unfortunate situation?
Veritas said…
Lex is right. Is it really the responsibility of taxpayers at large to foot the bill on a vaccine for a behaviorally transmitted disease? How is that consistent with the conservative philosophies of limited government or personal responsibility? By all means the vaccine should be commercially available, just not publicly subsidized.
Anonymous said…
When the problems with the vaccine--which is untested in large populations--begin to hit our court system. It shouldn't be our tax dollars paying big awards --but it WILL be if it is government mandated and gov. subsidized.

Let the private market and manufactures take the hits.

Any vaccine that is the ONLY one on the market should be suspect for at least 7-10 years until there is a large group of voluntary user who sort out the side effects and problems with the vaccine.
Anonymous said…
Reiger and Ellis would rather see a woman die a painful and cruel death from cancer than give them the opportunity to be vacinated. Ya, these guys are true Christians alright. What is with these wackos?

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long