'Underage sex is sooo evil you deserve to die in agony' nonsense
It was on the news this morning that a vaccine for the two most common strains of HPV, which cause 70% of cervical cancers, has been 100 % effective in clinical trials and will soon for licensed for use in this country. A small piece on it was included in Women's Hour on Radio 4 - they interviewed a female professor who worked in the field, and a female columnist for The Independent.
The professor explained that since the vaccine is probably only really effective if given before the woman is exposed to the virus (through sexual contact), the vaccination programme will probably be targetted at 10-14 year olds, because although no-one wants to encourage underrage sex, it is a FACT that it happens. The columnist protested that it would encourage 10 year olds to have sex and was therefore unacceptable. This annoyed me enough; I mean I can see that you could make that argument for say, giving out condoms, but I really fail to see how giving a child a vaccine to protect her from cervical cancer later in life is going to affect her decision on whether or not she is going to have sex. Then the real corker comes out of her mouth (to paraphrase): "I would rather the NHS spent the money on a 'Just Say No' campaign to encourage abstinance than on this vaccination programme". In other words - I'm soo against underage sex that rather than acknowledge it will happen regardless of what I think, and act to reduce its potential consequences, I would rather condemn women to the needless death they obviously deserve if they make such a stupid mistake
Why oh why, do some people believe that ignorance equals innocence and is therefore a valid defence against all the supposed evils of the world????
The professor explained that since the vaccine is probably only really effective if given before the woman is exposed to the virus (through sexual contact), the vaccination programme will probably be targetted at 10-14 year olds, because although no-one wants to encourage underrage sex, it is a FACT that it happens. The columnist protested that it would encourage 10 year olds to have sex and was therefore unacceptable. This annoyed me enough; I mean I can see that you could make that argument for say, giving out condoms, but I really fail to see how giving a child a vaccine to protect her from cervical cancer later in life is going to affect her decision on whether or not she is going to have sex. Then the real corker comes out of her mouth (to paraphrase): "I would rather the NHS spent the money on a 'Just Say No' campaign to encourage abstinance than on this vaccination programme". In other words - I'm soo against underage sex that rather than acknowledge it will happen regardless of what I think, and act to reduce its potential consequences, I would rather condemn women to the needless death they obviously deserve if they make such a stupid mistake
Why oh why, do some people believe that ignorance equals innocence and is therefore a valid defence against all the supposed evils of the world????