Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HPV Vaccine—The Chemical Condom
Spirit and Life ^ | 6/23/2005 | Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer

Posted on 06/26/2006 9:35:32 AM PDT by Pyro7480

HPV Vaccine—The Chemical Condom

Last week I began to address the problem of the HPV vaccine as a tool of the culture of death. This week we need to address the "mental culture" that the vaccine fosters. This vaccine perpetuates the mendacious "safe sex" culture that underscores the sexual revolution and has wrought such havoc on our kids. If we fall for this HPV vaccine and its false doctrine of "protection" we can expect the worst aspects of the sexual revolution to be with us for another generation at least.

Here is what I mean. Imagine the attitude of our grandparents' generation toward a vaccine that supposedly protected people from the negative effects of promiscuity. They would have laughed it out of the laboratory. To the first generation that embraced this medical phenomenon, vaccines were a protection against diseases that one did not bring on oneself! There was another way to handle diseases that people inflicted on themselves—it was called morality. In other words, behavior-based transmission of a disease always requires a behavior-based solution which will not be taught by the promoters of this vaccine—as it is still not taught by the purveyors of condoms.

Just as in some individual acts with a condom, disease and pregnancy will be prevented, so also with the vaccine some women will be protected from one type of sexually transmitted disease. Several questions follow from this observation:

First, what protection will women have from the other thirty STDs that don't have vaccines and any one or more of which may be communicated in the very same HPV-protected act? Is every child to be pumped with thirty vaccines to "protect" them from all disease? Even if this were possible does our already sexually-debased society need this further degradation of human sexuality? If it is not possible, then why are we pretending that this vaccine makes people "safe"? The total climate of transmission is still toxic even if this vaccine effectively protects from one disease.

Second, what happens when/if the vaccine fails? We don't know if this vaccine will do what it purports to do. Because of the nature of inoculating any population, it will take thirty years to find it out if it actually works. If the vaccine eventually fails—like the condom—should we say that it makes women "safer" from HPV? In the meantime Merck stands to make billions with this new regimen to replace the billions lost by their Vioxx fiasco. Are we to trust the makers of Vioxx? Also, did Merck tell you that your kids will need three injections to receive this vaccine and that they'll need boosters in the future? I didn't think so.

Third, the mental attitude behind this vaccine is that kids "will do it anyway and we need to protect them." It is this attitude that is behind the promotion of condoms as a "protection" against STDs, but even the casual observe must be aware that this ethic has been a total disaster for our condomized culture. Promoting a piece of technology as a solution to an epidemic of behavior-based diseases is a lot easier than the hard work of teaching young people human values. Fifteen million people a year get these diseases in the US alone while our healthcare professionals and educators are teaching them to protect themselves. Giving our kids another unreliable safety net only foments the "mental culture" of "safe sex" that leads to the behaviors enabling the transmission of these diseases.

There is one sure way to prevent all 30 types of sexually transmitted diseases and their consequences—abstain from sex before marriage, marry an uninfected partner and don't commit adultery while married. If parents, healthcare professionals and educators are not willing to unite behind this revolutionary moral message we will just have to expect more victims of the sexual revolution.


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: cancer; cervicalcancer; culture; death; euteneuer; health; hli; hpv; hpvaccine; std; vaccine; vaccines
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
This is the second of a series of columns. The first column on HPV can be found at: HPV Vaccine—Another Deception of the Culture of Death
1 posted on 06/26/2006 9:35:35 AM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Heavens to Betsy, people are having SEX!!!

That is totally unacceptable!

2 posted on 06/26/2006 9:37:55 AM PDT by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer; justche; webstersII; Antoninus; Judith Anne; Darksheare; Coleus; wagglebee; ...

Ping!


3 posted on 06/26/2006 9:38:58 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in... patience, humility, & charity." -St. Philip Neri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Just make sure your kids get this vaccine, this is a medical issue. 80% of teh population has this virus, their future wife or husband will probably have it. Even if tehy are a virgin till marriage only a fool would not protect against a deadly cancer.


4 posted on 06/26/2006 9:39:39 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
80% have this? Apparently, I've been living under a rock because I'd never heard of it until a couple weeks ago. I'm still going to give the vaccine a couple years, but if it will protect my kid from getting just one of the dozens of bad diseases out there, then I'm for it.
5 posted on 06/26/2006 9:46:47 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

To disparage such a huge medical advance on incredibly shaky moral grounds is dangerous and irresponsible. Get the vaccine and applaud the 'evil' pharmaceutical company that did such amazing work.


6 posted on 06/26/2006 9:47:12 AM PDT by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I'm shocked that people are missing the point - I don't know if it's willful ignorance or true ignorance.


7 posted on 06/26/2006 9:49:50 AM PDT by justche (Let me make something perfectly clear. I never explain myself - Mary Poppins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I'm shocked that people are missing the point - I don't know if it's willful ignorance or true ignorance.


8 posted on 06/26/2006 9:49:53 AM PDT by justche (Let me make something perfectly clear. I never explain myself - Mary Poppins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justche

whoops, 'scuse the hiccup


9 posted on 06/26/2006 9:50:43 AM PDT by justche (Let me make something perfectly clear. I never explain myself - Mary Poppins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Yes it is estimated a huge % has it, I assume that I do, and the vaccine protects against several cancers.


10 posted on 06/26/2006 9:50:53 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

For some reason, the Valtrexx commercial popped into my head.
"It's about suppression"
The one commercial has the lady stating that her guy doesn't know she has herpes.
But, apparently in the commercial, since she has Valtrexx she doesn't have to worry about telling him.
(Immediately afterwards the commercial states that one can still spread herpes even when no visible outbreak occurs.)

So the attitude becomes that of 'do it often, have your fun' and no condom use because they premise that they are protected.

How much you want to bet that the HPV vaccine will foster a similar attitude?


11 posted on 06/26/2006 9:55:27 AM PDT by Darksheare (This is a test of the emergency tagline system. Had there been an emergency, you would have heard...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Yes it is estimated a huge % has it, I assume that I do, and the vaccine protects against several cancers.

Only 1 infected person in 1000 gets serious cancer from the virus. However the cancer treatment is no picnic compared to the extremely low risk from the vaccine. All I am against is making it mandatory.

12 posted on 06/26/2006 9:57:09 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I'm all for morality, but I didn't realize that you had to be for cancer at the same time.


13 posted on 06/26/2006 9:59:37 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I can appreciate the concerns being addressed here, but I still think it's misguided to oppose development of vaccines on the grounds that they could remove disincentives to bad behavior.

I don't care how people get the diseases they get -- I still don't want them to die for making one mistake.


14 posted on 06/26/2006 10:00:06 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

There are those who would force their decisions on others in as much as they would force others to take a preventive measure they may not ever need due to someone elses bad decisions.
For example, forcing me to take a vaccine for HPV because someone else is irresponsibly stupid.
(Like those who take Valtrexx and think they don't have to be honest with their Sig-others, or can't spread their herpes.)


15 posted on 06/26/2006 10:09:10 AM PDT by Darksheare (This is a test of the emergency tagline system. Had there been an emergency, you would have heard...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

So we're supposed to be encouraging VD rather than abstinence as the means by which sex outside of marriage is reduced?


16 posted on 06/26/2006 10:17:03 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Sure but if even 40% of the population has this virus, 1 in a 1000 is a lot of cancers. It also interests me because this viral link to certain cancers may mean this will be an approach to fighting other cancers.


17 posted on 06/26/2006 10:21:23 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Well, if we want to talk about forcing stuff on people, how about making everyone swallow flouride with every drink of water. I recall some claims of a flouride/ cancer link. And that one's just fighting tooth decay.


18 posted on 06/26/2006 10:23:18 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold

I also wonder about the means of transmission of this virus. I'm not sure a kiss won't do it. In my mind this is not an issue like giving out condoms. The condom is for use in having sex. This vaccine is to protect against something your future spouse may give you even if you wait till marriage. The vaccine does nothing to get you out there having sex, unless you are extremely ignorant and uninformed.


19 posted on 06/26/2006 10:26:13 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Yeah.
I don't need gubbiment to nanny me to death.
Which is what it does.


20 posted on 06/26/2006 10:26:27 AM PDT by Darksheare (This is a test of the emergency tagline system. Had there been an emergency, you would have heard...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson