Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Tuesday, 22 May 2007

Go read this article about HPV vaccine:

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/pollitt

 

Here’s the money quote:

I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about "life" than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex--pregnancy, disease, death--abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it's better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It's honor killing on the installment plan.

And another one:

As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear. That's why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place.

 

Here is another article for the layman, but more science-oriented about the virus, the vaccine, and the reasoning of the people opposing it:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/05/11/texas_where_the_living_is_cont.php

 

Here, you can get the facts about HPV Vaccine: http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/57/1/7#SEC5

Tuesday, 22 May 2007 09:18:28 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [1] |  |  | #
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 16:08:49 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa,
Here is an interesting article by Leon Kass: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/shapiro/Phil523/Kass.pdf
it's on cloning and has a silly argument about grossness= immoral, but skip that and be VERY charitable and there is a bit of enlightenment to be had about the position that sex has to be for procreation (pun allowed). It isn't just to keep women in their place, but to keep everyone in their place. In the end I don't think he makes his case, but along the way he makes some interesting points about family, genetic relations and biological ownership that I think are really valuable.
my favorite quote:
[through sex we give existence] to another being who is formed, exactly as we were, by what we are: living, hence perishable, hence aspiringly erotic, human beings"
his point here is that, up until recently, we create and were created without much intention. We became and just are. people have to accept our existence without arguing that it could have been otherwise. My own conclusion is that now we hold people completely responsible for their sexuality and fertility and as such hold them to even higher standards of child rearing (but don't provide any assistance to aid them in the task).

you are right, it is about sex and not just "protecting the innocent and most vulnerable" (if it was just about protecting the most vulnerable they would be protecting unborn squirrels. That's a group that is vulnerable and they can't have more original sin than humans. perhaps equal but not more.) Sex matters a great deal and should not be treated as a commodity. Making sex a commodity is a step to treating people as a commodity. Taking sex out of the realm of the sacred is a step to treating sex as a commodity.

The problem with the religious right in this country is they're all a bunch of commies until some work needs to be done, especially if they have to pay for it!

a small penguin
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: