I read this story (http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/435157) in yesterday's online Toronto Star about a Catholic (but publicly funded... and don't get me started on
that) school board near me:
QuoteProviding the HPV vaccine to Grade 8 girls in its schools sends a "contradictory" message to Catholic students and should end, says a motion before Halton's Catholic board from its vice-chair.
Joanne Matters' motion, to be voted on at the board's meeting tomorrow, revives a debate that hasn't been in the news for almost a year, when Catholic boards across the province grappled with how to handle the controversy around the new vaccine.
This debate isn't even over whether they have the money for the vaccine. It's provided
free-of-charge to the school boards by the province.
They're worried about sending a "contradictory" message to young girls, but apparently they have no problem with the message that says, "we supposedly care about your well-being, but we also want to make the likelihood
that you will die if you disobey us as high as possible."
If all the other arguments against public funding of religious schools somehow aren't enough, I think when any group demonstrates that they're willing to pay for the promotion of their particular version of morality with human life, we have gone well beyond the point where the general public should be subsidizing them.
Makes me mad... >:(
Edit: on re-reading my post, I think I should add that if anyone feels like moving it to the Snark & Rant section, I wouldn't be adverse to that. :-\
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Doctors should decide these kind of things not school boards...
And for F***'s sake even Catholic grow up and occasionally get married and have sex within wedlock or does the school board want to prohibit that too? ???
Or do they think that HPV doesn't infect married people?
Arrrgh!
The world's largest and oldest continual Patriarchy deems itself eminently able to handle issues of women's health. After all, women are mere property, right?? :axe: :axe: :axe:
:explode:
Darlica, the aspergillum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergillum) that the priest uses during the wedding ceremony is filled with an anti-viral agent that kills HPV, so if you get married in a Catholic Church and wait until you're married to have sex, you're safe. ;)
no... not really...
But even if that were the case, I don't see the logic behind their position.
When I got vaccinated for tetanus when I was a kid, I didn't take that as tacit endorsement of playing with rusty blades.
My parents drilled into me that I should always wear my seatbelt. I never once assumed that by doing so, they meant that I should go out and drive recklessly.
And even if a girl does have sex before marriage, it's her right to do so. It may not be what the Church wants, but it's still completely her prerogative.
They're worried about putting ideas in the head of grade 8 girls? Well, IMO, if there actually is any 14-year-old girl out there who has had so little guidance in her upbringing that an injection would make any difference at all in her moral outlook, then there's a definite need for her to get it.
I'm with you all the way!
These kinds of stories (1) enrage and (2) weary me.
If present at the farce of a hearing, I am one who would rise and query the board whether a 'virgin bride' who learns that she has contracted HPV from her husband may sue them individually and collectively for her medical bills...
I suppose if you believe this life is just a brief rehearsal for the real thing, and that you need a full set of good behaviour stamps to get to the main performance, then it's not quite so irrational. Not a view I subscribe to though.
There would be justifiable reasons for the school not to be involved in that particular vaccination (especially if mandatory).
There has not yet been realistic long-time testing (e.g. whether the elimination of the strains of papilloma the vaccine works against will lead to even more dangerous strains taking over).
The given reason is something different and in the same category as "do not inform them about STDs because sin's reward must be suffering and death" as applied in the past (also by the Anglican church, named the order that made the army rot by Kipling*).
*
QuoteHast thou forgotten when the order came across the seas that rotted out the armies of the English with us, so that soldiers fell sick by the hundred where but ten had sickened before?
in
One view of the question(referring to a religiously inspired order to close the controlled brothels thus requiring soldier to either abstain or catch STDs from uncontrolled hookers. The problem was exacerbated by bans of marrying local women and discouragement of "white women" import. What Kipling wrote about the bishop responsible is not for the faint of heart)
Quote from: Swatopluk on June 04, 2008, 11:03:15 AM
There would be justifiable reasons for the school not to be involved in that particular vaccination (especially if mandatory).
There has not yet been realistic long-time testing (e.g. whether the elimination of the strains of papilloma the vaccine works against will lead to even more dangerous strains taking over).
The vaccination's not mandatory now; parents can choose to opt their daughters out of it. But if the justification were as you describe (and they could substantiate that the potential for harm outweighs the real benefits), I could probably accept it.
The background statement that the trustee putting forward the motion gave can be found on page 18 of the meeting report PDF (http://www.hcdsb.org/news/2008%2006/080603full.pdf). She makes an oblique reference to a study by an epidemiologist, but then goes on to state that the overwhelming issue surrounding the vaccinations is the "message" it sends to students.
Quote from: Swatopluk on June 04, 2008, 11:03:15 AMThe given reason is something different and in the same category as "do not inform them about STDs because sin's reward must be suffering and death" as applied in the past (also by the Anglican church, named the order that made the army rot by Kipling*).
I wonder how they reconcile their position on HPV vaccination with the argument the Catholic Church presents against abortion, in which they place the value of human life (as they define it) above just about everything else in existence... yet here, place its value below the slim potential for the vaccination to lead students "astray", despite the strong "abstinence is the only way" message that they receive everywhere else.
Marrying and having children is only the second and inferior option for Roman Catholics. According to RCC theology it would be better, if nobody would have sex at all. The ideal for those not strong enough to become monks/nuns is the Joseph Marriage, i.e. total abstinence while being married.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josefsehe (there seems to be no English entry).
If turned barren by disease, sex should discontinue anyway (although the church now grudgingly tolerates barren intramarital sex).
Don't forget, the church bans condoms even if the woman lacks an uterus.
Which brings to mind the old Italian Catholic joke about the family with 7 kids, one every year, and then suddenly, no more.
You can fill in the gaps, but the punch line is "The Church?? Listen, buddy, if you don't play the game, you don't make the rules!!"
Swato, have you read anything by Uta Ranke Heinemann? I've enjoyed her books thoroughly and turned to them many times for fact-checking and information on documents to read further, when dealing with a rabid, blind-faith RC apologist.
I have read two or three of her books. Her polemics tend to get the better of her quite often though. It's definitely a good starting point but I would not totally rely on her. A better footnoting would also help because I found it difficult to find the primary texts she refers to based on her description alone.
What ideas like this or abstinence-only so-called "sex ed" are completely overlooking is the fact that if teenagers want to have sex, they will. If the unavailability of a condom is no obstacle to having sex, (I grant that the kids at my school are morons, but that trend is wide-spread, unfortunately), then you aren't gonna hear, "Sorry, baby, but my Catholic school denied me access to the HPV vaccine, so I'm saving myself for Mr. Right" anytime soon.
Quote from: Alpaca on June 05, 2008, 03:30:48 PM
"Sorry, baby, but my Catholic school denied me access to the HPV vaccine, so I'm saving myself for Mr. Right"
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
Which excludes the possibility of 'Mr. Right' having any kind of prior
'experimentation'...
::)
Quote from: Alpaca on June 05, 2008, 03:30:48 PM
What ideas like this or abstinence-only so-called "sex ed" are completely overlooking is the fact that if teenagers want to have sex, they will.
I'm not sure they ignore it. I think the unspoken message is that if teenagers have sex, they deserve what they get.
...and the rules are made by grumpy middle-aged people who either never were 16, or have long forgotten what it was like.
"The strongest oaths are straw to the fire in the blood" - Shakespeare
Are you suggesting that this is the result of a mixture of anorgasmia and guilt?
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on June 06, 2008, 07:14:19 PM
Are you suggesting that this is the result of a mixture of anorgasmia and guilt?
No, I think he said they
didn't remember being 16... :mrgreen:
have I mentioned that I much prefer adulthood to adolescence? :P
I dunno, I do believe that these kind of fundies are either anorgasmic or have a tremendous guilt for past/present/future orgasms. Some people have been effectively neutralized with guilt and either want to 'protect' those '
poor sinner souls' or can't stand the possibility of someone else enjoying what they can't.
Quote from: Agujjim on June 06, 2008, 07:31:46 PM
have I mentioned that I much prefer adulthood to adolescence? :P
Don't you at times wish to go back knowing what you know now? ;) :devil2:
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on June 06, 2008, 08:24:13 PMDon't you at times wish to go back knowing what you know now? ;) :devil2:
Yeah, but it's hard to say whether I'd want to put the knowledge to good (evil?) use knowing the outcome of slugging through it the way it happened. I think I'd just prefer to tell my past self to stick with it because it all works out for the best. Maybe I did...
Be careful what you tell yourself.
"The happiest youth, viewing his progress through,
What perils past, what crosses to ensue,
Would shut the book, and sit him down and die."
I've gone all Shakespearian today. Pretentiousness, another fault of grumpy, middle-aged people. And I'm giving away the ending.
Train the priests to give the injections while chanting "this hurts me far more than it hurts you".
;D
I think it stems from the fact that the fundies are willing to suspend any inner sense of morality and justice in favor of sticking to a grossly misinterpreted set of "rules" that are allegedly based on the Bible and will thus allegedly get them into heaven and simultaneously make them feel good about themselves.
Meh, it's all about people having FUN.
This is SERIOUS!! LIFE is serious!! You can't just go around ENJOYING yourself!!
I say why not?? And I agree with Kurt Vonnegut...Mankind was put on this earth to fart around.
Your basic fartin' around doin' somethin' for FUN!!
============
As to the teen sex part...since abstinence education works SO WELL...as the US has proved, you think that the parents would encourage the board to encourage the injections.
There's one definite issue that makes me think they're an excellent idea.
http://www.mcadsv.org/mrcdsv/resource/stats/teens.pdf
QuoteThe National Violence Against Women Survey found that of the women who reported being raped at some time in their lives, 21.6% were under the age of 12 years old, 32.4% were 12-17 years old, and 29% were 18-24 years old when they were first raped. This translates to 54% of women victims who were under 18 at the time of the first rape. (Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. November 1998.)
How soon is too soon to be worrying about THAT issue??
Quote21.6% were under the age of 12 years old
That the REPORTED incidents of rape point to between 18 and 25 percent of women being raped at some point, AND that early rape/abuse victims are more likely to become 'serial victims' (sexual abusers of children can spot them a mile off, somehow)--WHY would you NOT try to protect your child?
OH, yeah, because it'll 'encourage them'.
Stupid. Just stupid.
Have you forgotten that to those people rape victims "just asked for it"? :puke: :brainbleech:
According to that logic the vaccination would drive rape numbers up
The Indian (=Hindu) fundie solution to that is: Vaccinate the boys but not the girls :snark:
The issue surrounding the HPV vaccine has left me literally baffled.
I try to comprehend their point-of-view, but I cannot: it literally Does Not Compute (to me).
Of course, I do try to reconcile my internal rules to be harmonious, where possible....
...and fundies almost never, EVER do that-- so far as my experience has been.
They claim that the message the vaccine sends is "it's okay to have sex".
When in reality the message sent is, "if you break our completely arbitrary rules, we want you to DIE".
and "Our Rules are MORE valuable than Human Life itself".
Kids are NOT stupid: there's plenty of anti-sex brainwashing going on-- more than enough to offset any POSSIBLE "sex is okay" message that a vaccine might convey.
What? They don't TRUST their brain-washing techniques? Well, I suppose they have good reason not to.... ::) :ROFL:
But, if you could trace the origins of the idiotic notion that the HPV vaccine sends "sex is okay" message-- it WILL have come from a MALE!
Who NEVER, EVER has to face the possible issues from contracting the diseases HPV vaccine protects from. (Who, if he is/was married, would DISOWN any of his spouse/offspring who DARED to have contracted such disease, too....)
You know: a dried-up evil old coot who HATES women underneath it all, and only sees them as a means to creating a Dynasty...
*bleah*
Actually genital warts are the result of HPV in both males and females.
Obviously no man has died yet of genital warts. ::) :headbang:
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on June 07, 2008, 10:46:32 PM
They claim that the message the vaccine sends is "it's okay to have sex".
And isn't this what all vaccinations do?
It took me years of counselling to realize that the tetanus booster I got at age 10 wasn't my parents' way of telling me to go out and play with sharp, rusty things. ;)
BTW - I'm not sure why this didn't show up when I searched last week, but the motion was approved (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23463.aspx):
QuoteA decision by the Halton District Catholic School Board to block HPV vaccines from being administered in its schools has drawn the ire of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.
The decision came Tuesday night when the board reversed an earlier call and decided public health nurses would not be allowed in its schools to provide the vaccine for girls in Grade 8.
The human papilloma virus is contracted only through sexual activity and is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women.
McGuinty said he was disappointed with the trustees, suggesting the vaccine, "is the right thing to do for our daughters," even as he admitted his government can't force boards to participate. He added that parents should know the vaccine is covered by public health care.
"I think it's a mistake for the board not to participate in that program," McGuinty said.
Read an interesting review of a book today looking at the epidemiology of HIV in Thailand. The theme was that a certain amount of "promiscuity" was cutting infection numbers. Here's how it worked. A decade ago when "nice girls" didn't, young men went to the brothels instead. More recently, when girlfriends are more obliging the men give the red zones a miss. As infection is closely related to efective number of partners the result has been a drop in infection rates as a whole. Presumably the pattern applies to other STDs too.
But would Have Sex and Save the Nation convince the Catholic Chruch?
In any case, I suggest this finding indicates that men should just be advised to always ask for the same girl at the brothel :taz:
Quote from: Griffin NoName on June 15, 2008, 01:29:22 AM
But would Have Sex and Save the Nation convince the Catholic Chruch?
When I hear of poor people with more than 2 kids been told not to use contraception 'because the church said so' I get very angry*. Still if the vatican is willing to give bad advise to the poor on contraception, hoping them to have common sense on HIV sounds more fictitious that the book of revelation.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on June 15, 2008, 01:29:22 AM
In any case, I suggest this finding indicates that men should just be advised to always ask for the same girl at the brothel
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
* I know some priests working with poor people that actually give good advise. Apparently not all of them lost their good sense in the seminary.
:brainbleech:
Quote from: Griffin NoName on June 15, 2008, 01:29:22 AM
In any case, I suggest this finding indicates that men should just be advised to always ask for the same girl at the brothel :taz:
Ah, but effective number of partners includes those that partners have "slept" with, and so on. I suspect demanding exclusivity would significantly increase the price. And that's before you mention the egg whisk, celery and flying helmet requirement.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on June 15, 2008, 01:29:22 AM
But would Have Sex and Save the Nation convince the Catholic Chruch?
I believe the priesthood have entertained a certain flexibility of interpretation (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-secret-life-of-michael-cleary-entertainer-radio-show-host-father-of-two-and-priest-401971.html) at times in this area.
Besides their newest recruit (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bush-may-convert-to-catholicism-846953.html) will sort everything out.
Quote from: beagle on June 15, 2008, 04:02:21 PM
I suspect demanding exclusivity would significantly increase the price.
No problem. They'd get a discount for repeat orders ;D
Quote from: beagle on June 15, 2008, 04:02:21 PM
Besides their newest recruit (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bush-may-convert-to-catholicism-846953.html) will sort everything out.
I wonder how many catholics will have second thoughts if that happens. In fact, my wife just saw the title and made a "this is not happening" face*. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
*she is a non fundie catholic.
Quote from: beagle on June 15, 2008, 04:02:21 PM
And that's before you mention the egg whisk, celery and flying helmet requirement.
WHAT! Oh help--- that cracks me up. I needed that laugh. Thanks luv
So that's just me then? Wondered why it was always itemized separately on the bill.
wonder if the items could be deducted as business expenses?
Quote from: anthrobabe on June 17, 2008, 11:30:29 AM
wonder if the items could be deducted as business expenses?
Only if you're entertaining a prospective client.
Stationery. Staples size 56, two hundredweight.
Reminds me of the story of a businessman whose umbrella was crushed in a car door on a company trip, but was refused money for it on expenses.
Next trip he put in a hugely complicated expenses claim with a post-it attached saying "Now find the umbrella".
Quote from: beagle on June 17, 2008, 07:57:29 PM
Stationery. Staples size 56, two hundredweight.
Reminds me of the story of a businessman whose umbrella was crushed in a car door on a company trip, but was refused money for it on expenses.
Next trip he put in a hugely complicated expenses claim with a post-it attached saying "Now find the umbrella".
Yeah. Regular users of expense forms can easily evade "prohibited" items like that...
... a few years ago I worked for a consulting firm, which paid mileage on trips. Everyone turned in those-- as we were expected to show up at the main office, then travel to the clients locations
in our own cars.
The horse's *ahem* what owned the business decided that expenses were too high (yet he routinely traveled from Florida to Tulsa, via
last-minute FIRST CLASS flights....
Hello!)
So he decided that travel expenses would ONLY cover trips longer than what? I forget-- 5 miles or something.
What did people do? They took roundabout ways to get to clients' locations-- it seems that our regular customers' businesses had moved overnight....
Idiot.
Quote from: anthrobabe on June 17, 2008, 11:30:29 AM
wonder if the items could be deducted as business expenses?
Just claim they are
nannies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2091340/Caroline-Spelman,-Conservative-Party-chairman,-faces-'nanny'-expenses-probe.html) - does one pay extra for the uniform?