A moral too far ?

A vaccine has been developed that could reduce the risk of cervical cancer by 70-80%...... good news? I think so. But there are those that wish to stop this vaccine entering service. WHY? because they say it will encourage sexual activity.

Is there a point where lifestyle moral values should overrule medical cures? Will these people object to a cure for aids? I do wonder if cures for such diseases that often carry a social stigma are being held back because of moral values.

It's ok to have moral values....just don't try to force them on others.

Some links about the issue (I couldn't find the story on the frc site)

new scientist

the nation ( biased ) magazine

crossfire

Considering no one knows the *cause* of cervical cancer, and I have heard of women who've never had sex to be diagnosed with it, I'd politely tell the naysayers to stuff it. No one deserves to be diagnosed with either cancer or AIDS, irrespective of their sexual proclivities and frequencies.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense...I really ought to stop coming here after work. ;)

:shuriken:

So we should keep cancer in the world to keep people chaste? Brilliant.:lol:

I say vaccinate everyone who wants to be vaccinated and then stay the fuck out of their bedroom. (Unless you're sleeping with them I guess...)

Quote:

---

No one deserves to be diagnosed with either cancer or AIDS, irrespective of their sexual proclivities and frequencies.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense...I really ought to stop coming here after work.

---

Makes perfect sense to me.

we should stop neo-cons from having any medical help at all until they accept this :unsure:

You dont have to kill embryo's to get stem cells from them.

The Law Lords in the UK have already decided there was nothing wrong with one couple that wished to have a "designer baby".. not because they wished for a superchild etc; but because they wished to take stem cells from the embryo in order to cure the embryo's older sibling.

The embryo would then carry on to term as the couples second child.

Saying that the only way to have "Embryionic Stem Cell Research" is to kill the embryo or use frozen ones before discarding shows one thing.. The Pres of the USA doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about.

But whats new there?

This is exactly the same thing... denying Research and Medicines that would save lives, because of personal Moral feelings.

I assume that, if taken ill, those resonsible for these decisions will make full use of the medications available for themselves. Despite the fact that a lot of that Medical Knowledge was made through Grave Robbing and Murder in the past, Nazi experiments in WWII and in numerous other unsavory ways.

Hypocracy... let them use leeches for all their ailments.

If these people had their way through history, we'd still believe that a Wolves Penis eaten at midnight on a full moon is the cure for warts or some other such foolishness.

Therefore, lets treat their medical ailments the way that the Greeks or Romans would have done... wonder if they'll change their minds then?

@RF.. you nearly threw me then, almost ready to move your post to the 'stem cell research thread'...then...halfway down....ohhhhhh yeeeaaaahhhh...I seeeee using it as an example of moral bigotry...ah...I get it now...

:)

Phew..... :blink:

there is a stem cell research thread ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

Considering no one knows the *cause* of cervical cancer, and I have heard of women who've never had sex to be diagnosed with it, I'd politely tell the naysayers to stuff it. No one deserves to be diagnosed with either cancer or AIDS, irrespective of their sexual proclivities and frequencies.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense...I really ought to stop coming here after work. ;)

:shuriken:

---

Good speech, I agree.

However I also agree that if people feel strongly that something is wrong then they have the right (perhaps duty in their eyes) to say it.

Freedom of expression and all that. As Tony Benn said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Paraphrase).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

If these people had their way through history, we'd still believe that a Wolves Penis eaten at midnight on a full moon is the cure for warts or some other such foolishness.

---

Unless you have actually tried this how do you know it is foolishness.

Please stop offending the boards wiccans, I thought you knew better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You dont have to kill embryo's to get stem cells from them.

The Law Lords in the UK have already decided there was nothing wrong with one couple that wished to have a "designer baby".. not because they wished for a superchild etc; but because they wished to take stem cells from the embryo in order to cure the embryo's older sibling.

The embryo would then carry on to term as the couples second child.

Saying that the only way to have "Embryionic Stem Cell Research" is to kill the embryo or use frozen ones before discarding shows one thing.. The Pres of the USA doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about.

But whats new there?

This is exactly the same thing... denying Research and Medicines that would save lives, because of personal Moral feelings.

I assume that, if taken ill, those resonsible for these decisions will make full use of the medications available for themselves. Despite the fact that a lot of that Medical Knowledge was made through Grave Robbing and Murder in the past, Nazi experiments in WWII and in numerous other unsavory ways.

Hypocracy... let them use leeches for all their ailments.

If these people had their way through history, we'd still believe that a Wolves Penis eaten at midnight on a full moon is the cure for warts or some other such foolishness.

Therefore, lets treat their medical ailments the way that the Greeks or Romans would have done... wonder if they'll change their minds then?

---

Let us not forget the society for the preservation of Leeches.

Say it yes..

However these are trying to stop it being used, because they believe it will increase promiscuity. This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Say it yes..

However these are trying to stop it being used, because they believe it will increase promiscuity. This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.

---

They must be allowed to try to do this, even if I think they are totally wrong. So long as it only be words and peaceful protest.

You must be allowed to try to thwart them, by using the same means.

Freedom of expression is meaningless otherwise.

Delays mean death though... so no matter how peaceful their means, if it would cause delay then sod 'em :P

I reckon the ones who try to stop it from being used shouldn't be allowed to breed, so if we can forbid it from being used on them, and them alone, that would be cool.

I reckon it would keep them chaste, at least the wimmins :ermm:

As far as I am aware this will not be a compulsory vaccination, Even if it was one may be excused on religious grounds.... a freedom an atheist isn't afforded.

If one objects to a vaccine on moral/ religious grounds they can do so...they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I reckon the ones who try to stop it from being used shouldn't be allowed to breed, so if we can forbid it from being used on them, and them alone, that would be cool.

I reckon it would keep them chaste, at least the wimmins :ermm:

---

Maybe they would not get chased if they were not allowed to breed.:unsure:

Some people do like a challenge though :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Say it yes..

However these are trying to stop it being used, because they believe it will increase promiscuity. This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.

---

They must be allowed to try to do this, even if I think they are totally wrong. So long as it only be words and peaceful protest.

You must be allowed to try to thwart them, by using the same means.

Freedom of expression is meaningless otherwise.

---

Exactly. I want idiots to yell loudly and let themselves be known. :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

They must be allowed to try to do this, even if I think they are totally wrong. So long as it only be words and peaceful protest.

You must be allowed to try to thwart them, by using the same means.

Freedom of expression is meaningless otherwise.

---

Exactly. I want idiots to yell loudly and let themselves be known. :lol: :lol:

---

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? EXACTLY.:blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.

---

:blink:

It really is unusual. RF is getting us confused again. ;)

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

If one objects to a vaccine on moral/ religious grounds they can do so...they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated.

---

So you would deny them their freedom to express this view.

I agree they have no right to stop people being vaccinated, but they must have the right to say it is wrong. To object to it's use.

I just drove by the adult movie theater and guess what was playing?

Vaccinated Girls Gone Wild.-

Adults only please-http://img81.echo.cx/my.php?image=untitled20np.png

There was a gratuitous use of condoms and bloated syringes were spewing vaccine everywhere.

The money shot and medicine shot made a titillating pair. The chaste will be throwning aside their habits to fornicate to this video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

I just drove by the adult movie theater and guess what was playing?

Vaccinated Girls Gone Wild.-

Adults only please-http://img81.echo.cx/my.php?image=untitled20np.png

There was a gratuitous use of condoms and bloated syringes were spewing vaccine everywhere.

The money shot and medicine shot made a titillating pair. The chaste will be throwning aside their habits to fornicate to this video.

---

You seem to be very knowledgable on the content of this movie considering you just "drove by" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

If one objects to a vaccine on moral/ religious grounds they can do so...they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated.

---

So you would deny them their freedom to express this view.

I agree they have no right to stop people being vaccinated, but they must have the right to say it is wrong. To object to it's use.

---

The Family research council Isn't just a group of people giving their views. They are a very active and influential political lobby group and it could be argued that the current administration are puppets to theirs and similar groups pressures.
They don't just say "things shouldn't be allowed" they actively campaign to make them outlawed.

I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... I simply say they have no right to force others to follow their morals.
We in the US live in a society where pharmacists are refusing to supply birth control to the unmarried. We have the morning after pill refused becoming over the counter, not because it is unsafe, it meets all the medical safety needs....but because it "would promote sexual promiscuity" and "it is the equivalent of abortion" because the egg could already be fertilized.

So no I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to express their views, they can march in the streets for all I care. I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values, especially when their values interfere with healthcare.

We cure disease, not point fingers and tell people they deserve what they get

"I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... "

" .... they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to object to that which they think is wrong. They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

"I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... "

" .... they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to object to that which they think is wrong. They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

---

F.F.S.

how many times do we have to say it?

Their "objecting" is manifested in trying to stop it. They are not just objecting by saying so they are objecting by trying to get it stopped. They are a political lobbying group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

"I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... "

" .... they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to object to that which they think is wrong. They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

---

F.F.S.

how many times do we have to say it?

Their "objecting" is manifested in trying to stop it. They are not just objecting by saying so they are objecting by trying to get it stopped. They are a political lobbying group.

---

FFS How many times do I have to say it, they are perfectly entitled to. That's what political lobbying is for.

That's what freedom of expression means. Whether you like it or not. If you take away their right to object where does it end. Who decides what can be objected to and what can't. What books do we burn.

So long as they stick to words and political lobbying and stay away from things like violence and intimidation, then no foul.

FFS I disagree with their position, but I defend their right to express it. I said that earlier. I disagree with your suggested censorship, but irony of ironies I defend your right to want it and lobby for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

It really is unusual. RF is getting us confused again. ;)

:shuriken:

---

:blushing:

I was drunk and didnt look properly.. I knew it was a blue name though :P

Whoever said it, i was agreeing with it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpaul

They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

---

Stopping, is what you are trying to do.

Expressing an opinion or lobbying is different, it is attempting to explain or influence. It does not stop people making up their own mind.

You are wrong again.... I am expressing my opinion that they have no right.

Please feel free to tell us how I am stopping them

I said you would try to stop them. By denying them the right to express their view.

Obviously and thankfully you cannot actually do it.

Do you believe in freedom of expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I said you would try to stop them. By denying them the right to express their view.

---

no you said I am trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpaul

Stopping, is what you are trying to do.

---

Am i going to congress or the senate to change the law? No... so how am i trying to stop them?

I am not denying them the right to express their veiw, I am expressing my view that they shouldn't impose their values on others...and at this time in history they are actually doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Do you believe in freedom of expression.

---

yes.... far more than these extremists do. I will fight for their freedom of speech, not their freedom of imposition. I will express my views but I will not impose them. if I felt I had the right to impose my morals on others I would pay to have a monument erected outside our courthouse next to the ten commandments that says "there is no god, stay within the law anyway"

They are not imposing anything as I understand it.

They are expressing their opinion and lobbying lawmakers. That's the way it works.

You say they have no right to do this. How is that supporting freedom of expression

you need to read up on the present political situation in the USA.

By going to congress and pressuring the lawmakers they are wishing to impose their values not simply express them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

you need to read up on the present political situation in the USA.

By going to congress and pressuring the lawmakers they are wishing to impose their values not simply express them

---

It is no different in any Democracy. Everyone approaches their representative to try and get their point brought to the 'Floor Of The House'. Very few succeed. Only when you have a lot of representatives pushing the same point something happens.

Indeed, that's what the system of lobbying is designed for. Like minded people trying to influence politics.

It is freedom of expression in the same way as anything else is.

I too find their opinion wrong, we agree on that. However where we disagree is in whether they should be allowed to do it. I think freedom of expression includes that which I disagree with, else the system is wrong. Who is to arbitrate on which lobbies will be allowed.

J2 i refer you to my previous posts

J2 I will re-word/re-phrase re-state one more time.

I see a difference between saying "My morals disagree with this" and "my morals disagree with this so I am going to try to change the law so you have to abide by my morals"..


I stated I AM EXPRESSING MY OPINION. I stated that they have no right to try to force their morals on me, this is my OPINION. I state my opinion yet I do not go to congress to try to make this opinion law.

Today we see actual lawmakers based on their religious morals trying to limit civil rights for others...newsflash... not every American shares those morals. I am not talking about the things that lawmakers should be ruling on...social security, the budget etc. I'm talking about personal freedoms, things government has no place interfering in.

So I made a distinction between freedom of speech and direct action. I AM STATING MY OPINION...not trying to change the law.... And the issue in this thread is about moral values.... it has nothing to do with the drugs safety, it has nothing to do with its effectiveness. It has to do with forcing moral values on others that don't share them. It has to do with interfering in peoples personal lives and in this particular case that interference could lead to someone dying of cervical cancer.

I will stand next to you and fight for your right to speak your mind even if I disagree with you, I will stand in your way if you try to force others to comply with your personal moral values. Do you see the difference?

If you wish people to follow your moral values do it by expressing your opinion and debate, convincing them, not by legislation. Our lawmakers could do with remembering what the word freedom means. They represent ALL Americans and not just the ones that voted them in.