Sex and Disease: Which is more immoral?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Sex and Disease: Which is more immoral?

This poll is inspired by an article in the current New Yorker by Mark Specter on the Bush administration vs. science (not available on line). Don't let that influence you, of course. ;) But I would be interested in seeing a discussion of why the right wing view is (or isn't) immoral and why the left wing view is (or isn't) the wiser one. (Maybe some might think "left" and "right" don't pertain to this issue.)

The story is this: Researchers have found that women who are given a certain drug have no chance of developing the papilloma virus associated with cervical cancer. In effect, they have evidence that they've developed a cervical cancer vaccine. Under pressure from the religious right, however, Republicans and the Bush administration are resisting a program to approve the vaccine and initiate vaccinating girls in their teens to try to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer.

Guess what their reasoning is... :eyes:

But as I say, don't let my bias against this idiocy influcence you. If you believe withholding the vaccine is more moral because it may encourage extramarital or recreational sex, please vote your conscience.

[BurtWorm]

1. Can there really be someone who thinks teen sex is worse

than having the ability to prevent cancer and not acting on it?

[niyad]

2. you haven't been reading some of the more inane and hateful

commentary from the reichwingnuts? yes, that is EXACLTY what they think.

[bryant69]

4. Maybe they are just casting a protest vote against a biased poll

I didn't vote myself - I'd like more information on this specific case before making my call.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

5. I'd like an explanation of how there can be any doubt about this.

And despite my blatant bias, I'm truly interested in an honest answer.

[bryant69]

6. Well

Based on the limited information you provided I suspect we would come down on the same side of this issue. However, I would like more information (and will seek it out after lunch).

However we would probably disagree on the morality of "recreational sex."

This goes back to a philosophical question I am strugling with currently - can one oppose an action while believing that action should be legal?

Or does the act of thinking recreational sex immoral (for example) naturally lend credence to those who would like to criminalize it?

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

9. The question is which is more immoral.

I personally don't think recreational sex is immoral in itself if it's consensual and between sexual adults who understand that they are responsible for the consequences. But I understand that many people do view it that way. My question is, however, how can withholding a cancer vaccine ever be considered moral? I can't think of a single instance.

[bryant69]

14. You understand the concept of a protest vote, right?

Anyway since I don't know who that voter was I can't really comment further.

[BurtWorm]

17. I'm asking not about those votes.

I'm asking about the position in general. It seems indefensible to me.

[bryant69]

18. I will say having done some research i'm not sure the

issue is as you present it.

The FDA has fastracked the vaccine, and it could be available later on in the year. ( http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/01/23/8366988/index.htm )

Rather the debate seems to be over making it mandatory (part of the standard regime of shots one recieves) or whether it should be up to the parents to decide whther or not to have thier children recieve the vaccine --> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

24. Fair enough.

But it still boils down to conservatives being willing to put girls at risk for cancer because they think immunizing them against the HPV tacitly condones immoral behavior. It's like arguing against taking bullets out of a gun when a child is playing with it because you're against gun control.

[sui generis]

11. well, having a personal belief about morality

is fine. It's when you try to enforce laws based on those beliefs upon everyone else that it becomes an issue.

Sex is not moral or immoral. At the end of the day it's just a mechanical act between animals, driven by basic biochemistry.

The problem with "recreational" sex is that it is pleasure for pleasure's sake, and most people who have a problem with the "morality" of personal choice really just have problems with other people choosing to experiencing pleasure instead of misery.

To answer your final question, if enough people believe it's moral to kill cows, it's moral. Just not for the cow.

[bryant69]

16. It's interesting how you say it's fine to have a personal belief

about morality, and then make it clear that it's not fine.

At any rate, obviously if one keeps his beliefs strictly to himself than the issue does not arise. If one expresses his opinion that Recreational sex is sinful, however, doesn't that imply that it is sinful for everybody?

And doesn't that, in a way, support those who want to criminalize it?

And if cows don't want to be eaten, they should say so.

[sui generis]

19. yes I'm a complete hypocrite

you got me ;)

It's subjective. To adapt your bovine philosophy, if it's not sinful for everybody they should say so, and we do. It's not the fact of our voices that counts though, it's the logic of our claim.

The issue is that a few people that make some absurd claim to some monolithic form of morality believe it's universal and they are the ones chosen to interpret it for the rest of us.

Interpretations of morality come in two forms: behavioral restrictions that we apply to ourselves, and behavioral restrictions we believe everyone should observe.

Morality alone is not a valid reason for a behavioral restriction couched in the language of law, with the enforcement of punishment and social retribution. It can't hold, and if it could, none of us would be eating shrimp and anybody who had a tendency towards sex outside of marriage would have had themselves and their gene lines pruned from the the human gene pool long ago or we would have redefined marriage long ago.

We have to have good reasons for saying "don't eat pork, nobody is allowed to eat pork" other than it's in some creaky old list of goatherder rules. Undercooked pork can cause trichinosis in humans, shellfish from high effluent human waste repositories (natural bays with open sewers) can cause hepatitis, and disease is most easily spread through contact with blood and mucous membranes. Those were valid reasons for avoiding pork and shellfish and sex with women in their "unclean time" (not my words).

Just saying it's immoral is stupid, and worthy only of goatherders.

[bryant69]

21. Is that my cue to make an argument in favor of abstinance?

I just don't have the energy, and I can't help thinking it wouldn't go anywhere anyway. And in all fairness this line of thinking concerns me more about the abortion debate (which is about to heat back up much to my sickness of stomach).

The people who think abortion is immoral certainly have made larger arguements than just proclaiming it immoral.

The peopel who think recreational sex is immoral have a harder row of it, becuase such arguments are usually based on values that are not necessarily shared among all the debators - and of course we are further away from outlawing recreational sex than we are to outlawing abortion.

For the record, despite my personal feelings on the morality or immorality of any specific action, I do not favor government restrictions on either one.

Bryant

[sui generis]

22. it's all good

I like a lively conversation - not making any judgements at all.

You make good points - I enjoy your insights most of the time, and equally fond of having you on when I don't.

:P

[Lolivia]

20. Morality is not the province of the legal system

The purpose of the legal system is to protect individual rights from invasion by others. It is simply not up to the legal system to decide what is moral and what is not, nor to uphold what is ultimately decided to be moral. To say otherwise is to say that people have absolutely no inherent rights - that they only "rights" they have are what the tyrannical majority decides is moral and hence legal. To say otherwise is to say that everyone is subject to the whims of the majority.

I take the opposite view. People naturally have all rights, but the legal system must come into play when those rights start to invade another's rights. No one's opinion has any place in that. Someone can have all sorts of nasty sex in all sorts of nasty ways using all sorts of nasty implements - but that in no way interferes with my rights, and thus the legal system has no part in it. You or I may say that is wrong or immoral, but that does not mean we should get to say it is illegal.

The issue is when people ask the legal system to perform functions is was never meant to perform. Something can be "morally wrong" but that does not mean it should be illegal. Not criminalizing something is not the same thing as expressing approval for it.

Morality simply cannot be the basis for criminilizing behavior. Whose morality to we use? What is the articulable standard? Whatever the majority says? That is antithetical to this country's ideals of "inalienable rights" that are not subject to the tyranny of the majority.

[sui generis]

23. I completely agree with you

the "law" is a contract between society and individuals, ultimately based on fair use of resources and preserving the rights and possessions of individuals and individuals themselves from harm.

The issue is that we don't have people proposing or enacting those laws who are able to distinguish between the judgements of "morality" and the enforcement of "morality" by abuse of law.

Decency/Obscenity laws are a perfect example. If you say "shit" to a police officer you can get a pretty stiff ticket - but shit is shit is shit. It's just food that has been biochemically processed by our bodies into waste. We don't get in trouble for saying "aw, coal tar byproduct!" or "fecal matter" or "tailpipe exhaust"! It's just mind-bogglingly stupid that we even perpetuate it about food waste, yet it's commonly accepted as "obscene".

Tyranny of the unthinking butt-stupid majority.

[Maru Kitteh]

29. The cows do say so. You've just never been there to listen to them.

They cry.

[bryant69]

38. On the list of things I would enjoy doing

Listening to cows cry is pretty far down the list.

Bryant

[Maru Kitteh]

40. Mine too, it's pretty sad. But where I live you can hear them from my

office window sometimes, especially when they do it at night and everything else is still. It can be a real buzz-kill.

[sui generis]

3. Burt, gorillas have more morality than

social conservatives.

A social conservative judges, and believes in social punishment, divine retribution, and justice served most cruelly, without once looking at lives, or consequence or human anguish themselves.

Let god sort it out.

Let an adult die so a clump of cells no bigger than a hangnail can live. Let a woman die for having sex out of churchlock. Let someone die for being gay, from a "gay disease". Nevermind that they too have families, and friends and loved ones who will survive and live with that pain.

These people don't deserve any respect for their views, and that's why they hide, even here. They're ashamed of themselves, of their convictions. They're cowards, not even strong enough in their own beliefs to proclaim them loudly.

A gorilla might frighten you, might even bite you, but it always has a valid reason. It is only human rationales that let us starve each other to death over abstract ideas of what we "should" or "should not" be doing.

If gays are immoral for doing what we do, whatever that is, aren't people who don't have sex immoral for not doing what heterosexuals do, whatever that is?

All these bizarre abstract ideas of what everyone else is supposed to be doing or not doing behind closed doors are a really frail basis for decisions about other people's life and death.

[BurtWorm]

7. What really struck me today in thinking about this

is the too rich irony of social conservatives claiming humans should not play god when that is all they ever do. And they never play the kind, loving, merciful god. They're always The Judge. I have no problem with them putting leashes and chastity belts on their own kids. But I'm totally sick of their trying to legislatively control the private lives of everyone else.

[Deja Q]

10. And how many of those folks are doctors? The irony reeks.

[Deja Q]

8. If they are against medicines, let them destroy the medical industry.

Entirely.

Make them go bankrupt.

Instead of the rest of us.

[Xithras]

12. Are they trying to make this a mandatory/standard vaccination?

I do oppose unnecessary vaccinations, and adding a cervical cancer vaccine to the standard retinue of childhood vaccines, when the action that causes the cancer is voluntary and a substantial portion of the population doesn't engage in it, qualifies as "unnecessary" to me. I certainly believe that a girl/woman should have the OPTION of taking the vaccine if she plans on becoming sexually active with multiple partners, but your snippet doesn't explain which scenario we're actually talking about here.

[BurtWorm]

13. I'm sorry I don't know if they mean for it to become compulsory.

I'm imagining it would be like the flu vaccine--strongly recommended by personal physicians to patients in certain populations. But I don't know how it would be carried out.

[Ufomammut]

15. Sicko America and friendly fascism

You have the right to a lawyer, but not a doctor. Given the amount of wealth and privledge in this country, it's an appalling crime of unbelievable magnitude that power and privledge here ensure that there's no universal health care for the populace. You wanna talk about grotesquely immoral?

[Quantess]

25. This makes me so mad.

Their message: sluts deserve to get cervical cancer!
That is it. They may word it fancy, and talk about morals, and "protecting their daughters' chastity". Pay attention to their real message.

Never mind that HPV virus ever stopped people from having sex before the vaccine days. I don't remember ever hearing that the Human Papilloma Virus causes cervical cancer, before being diagnosed with it. The HPV virus is already extremely common among men and women, and most people have no idea they have it, no symptoms. Males, as far as I know, don't get any serious health problems from this STD.

Consider that if penis cancer was caused by HPV, the same extent that cervical cancer is, would there be as much debate over the ethics of the vaccine? If HPV caused penis cancer, would you support vaccinating teenage boys?

[Maru Kitteh]

37. Dear God if it caused penis cancer they'd vaccinate everyone at BIRTH

and you're right about the HPV. From what I've read about 75% of the adult population carries this virus. That's A LOT of us.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. I found out on Friday I may have cervical cancer

In doing research about this subject I came across the information about this vaccine and wanted to know immediately if I could get it for my 17 year old daughter, to spare her what I'm going through now and may yet have to face.

WHY are we not administering this vaccine in every high school in North America?

I just got two teeth pulled today too. What a shit week this has been in the land of Veganistan.

[BurtWorm]

27. I'm sending you white light.

:white light:

And to your daughter. May you both be well.

[Maru Kitteh]

30. Thanks. You really don't know how much that means to me

:cry:

I'm trying to be brave you know, it's just a little hard sometimes.

So nice of you to say, it means everything.

[BurtWorm]

31. Well, you are being brave.

But you don't have to be, you know. :hug:

[EFerrari]

28. Sh!t. Pull the drawbridge and call in the clowns and minstrels.

:(

[Maru Kitteh]

34. Well, the nitrous was almost as helpful as a good clown, and the dentist

was excellent. As for the cancer I won't know what level I'm looking at for a couple of weeks so I am keeping my spirits up, getting plenty of exercise, eating well and educating myself as much as possible.

[EFerrari]

35. That sounds like a good plan. Don't forget as much sunlight

as possible and the color Yellow.



:hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

41. Thanks for the pretty yellow bird. I saved her in my cute animal folder.

Yellow eh? I'll try that, thanks. :hug:

[Quantess]

32. I had the same dilemma in 2002

I had cryosurgery to remove the pre-cancerous cells, and it was successful. At the same time, I found out I also have the HPV virus. It's very common, and cervical pre-cancer is treatable. Take care of yourself. :hug:

[Maru Kitteh]

36. Thanks for the encouragement. I have the blessing of good genetics

very little cancer in my family. I'm also young, 37, and in fairly decent shape. I'm focusing on the positive as much as I can and trying to stay active. Thanks for sharing your experience with me because it definitely makes me feel better. :hug:

[EFerrari]

47. Welcome to DU, quantessd.

Thank you for your input. Lots of us here appreciate it.

:hi:

[geniph]

39. Been there, done that, Veganistan

hang in there. Sending my best wishes your way!

[Maru Kitteh]

42. Thanks! n/t

[Dorian Gray]

33. I'm actually sort of surprised....

Surprised that the drug company that made the vaccine isn't lobbying harder for this. It would be more profitable for the company, and more than the religious right, the Republicans are in the pockets of the large Pharmaceutical companies.

[Katherine Brengle]

46. Actually, there may be a very logical explanation for it----

Pharmaceutical companies probably stand to make bigger profits treating cervical cancer than they do marketing this vaccine. Completely ridiculous, but in terms of bottom-line logic, it makes sense.

[phoebe]

43. neither - being manipulated into this ridiculous scheme is immoral.

When the people of this world - as you rightly hinted at - stop being manipulated by the constant divisions placed in front of them by those who want power - then, and only then will we all be able to defeat them. We are purposely bombarded with these "differences" on a daily basis to ensure the paralysis of the majority who are so afraid to make the "wrong choice" because their inadequacies will be pointed out to them in big red letters by those who are paid/chosen to do so.

Until WE, the people, truly desire to set these manipulated differences aside and agree to come together to work towards OUR mutual goals then we have decided that we would rather be manipulated and our power taken from us.

[MadMaddie]

44. This is a great discussion...my two cents..

This is why the seperation between church and state was emphasized.....and why it is so important!!

They forsaw what we are experiencing right now...England forced it's style of morality on its common people yet the elite broke the rules every chance they could...the masses sufferred...

I guarantee that if any of these repugs could see in the future and knew without a doubt that their daughter would be infected -they would find a way to prevent their daughters from suffering today...you see their situations are the exception to the rules...

[Katherine Brengle]

45. How could this possibly be considered immoral?

We vaccinate our kids against Hepatitis. We vaccinate them against a whole bunch of illnesses that may or may not ever effect them, many of which could easily be transmitted by physical contact, regardless of whether that contact is sexual or not.

If we designed an AIDS vaccine, we could save a whole lot of people from dying (and not just "sexually irresponsible" ones, but those who contract it from their pregnant mothers, those who contract it through rape, etc...) and wouldn't that be a moral good?

Also, you can get HPV without being sexually promiscuous--from contact with your husband, or another serious partner, so this doesn't hold water for me. Is a woman who gets AIDS from a male partner who has been unfaithful and contracted the virus an immoral person? Maybe RWs think so, but I do not.

Via Planned Parenthood:

HPV is transmitted by direct skin-to-skin contact with an infected individual. Transmission is usually from vaginal, oral, or anal sexual contact, and can occur whether or not warts or other symptoms are present (McDermott-Webster, 1999). The virus can also be transmitted from mother to infant during childbirth (Puranen, 1997). Very rarely, this "vertical" transmission is associated with development of recurrent laryngeal papillomatosis (warts on the throat) for the child — about 2,000 out of every 4 million newborns (Jay & Moscicki, 2000). This is a serious condition that may require frequent laser surgery to prevent obstruction of the infant's airways (NIAID, 2001). Some research also suggests that genital HPV can be transmitted through nonsexual routes, via fomites — inanimate objects such as towels or underwear — but more research must be conducted to examine these modes of transmission (Carson, 1997; Keller, et al., 1995; Stevens-Simon, et al., 2000).

I think that any preventitive treatment that carries the chance of stopping cancer of any kind is nothing short of a medical miracle.