focus on the fallacy
Take a short read, if you will, about cervical cancer. Then maybe read a little about HPV, one of the main causes and prerequisites to development of cervical cancer.
Now, a drug which supposedly has an almost 100% rate of prevention of cervical cancer * (if one has not been infected with HPV) is on the verge of being approved by the FDA. There's ( Read more... )
Now, a drug which supposedly has an almost 100% rate of prevention of cervical cancer * (if one has not been infected with HPV) is on the verge of being approved by the FDA. There's ( Read more... )
Comments 9
I really want to leave a comment about this post, but I’m kind of at a loss for words.. this ‘focus-on-the-family’ statement thing just doesn’t sound too smart….
tim
Reply
-C
Reply
I was reading their position statement. Thought it’s a little vague in their actual purpose per se (plus my mind is still a little numb after that personal property exam), but it does seem to state that they support the widespread availability of the HPV vaccine. What they seem to oppose is mandatory vaccinations for entry to public schools. no?
tim
Reply
My original source was Prime News, which unfortunately does not have an online version of the article that I can link to. On the news broadcast I watched yesterday night, there was a representative from (what i believe was) the NZ branch of Focus on the Family (although I'm not 100% sure if she was from NZ or not), who mentioned that the vaccine would promote premarital and casual sex amongst youths. There was actually no mention of the debate on whether the jab should be mandatory. Perhaps it was shoddy editing or a misinterpretation, but regardless, I think what I wrote above still stands
I Googled (after writing the entry) and came up with this link. I think it offers a slightly more nuanced and certainly more rehearsed and PC perspective on the issue ( ... )
Reply
tim (http://www.exnihilo.wordpress.com)
Reply
-
Reply
anyhoos…who’ve you been??
pam
Reply
Leave a comment