Jesus hates tetanus shots
I don't think the religious fundamentalists who oppose the cervical cancer vaccine are going far enough. I think we should be consistent and oppose all medical care that might encourage irresponsible behavior.
Let's start with tetanus shots. Vaccinating people against tetanus implicitly condones carelessness with rusty nails.
Vaccination sends mixed messages, generally. On the one hand, we're telling the kids "Don't put that thing in your mouth, you don't know where it's been!" But by vaccinating them, we're basically saying "Yes, precious, it's A-OK to lick rusty cans."
And don't forget that buying insurance is just gambling.
Posted by: dan | November 01, 2005 at 03:55 PM
Right, Lindsay, and maybe we need a constitutional amendment with plenty of ambiguous constructionist potential. Congress shall make no law which circumvents personal repsonsibilty.
Posted by: aflounder | November 01, 2005 at 05:07 PM
Teaching your kids hand-washing just encourages their hand-to-mouth activities. Like eating.
Why do these fools think that (1) teenaged girls need encouragement to be sexual, and (2) fear will render them sexually inactive?
Pretty silly, especially in light of the fact that-- long before birth control pills-- a high percentage of young married couples' first-born were "full-term premature" babies, appearing miraculously and healthy within the first eight months of the marriage.
Posted by: Ereshkigal | November 01, 2005 at 08:44 PM
I don't recall seeing most of what is done in critical care medicine described as being permitted in the bible, therefore those who think the bible is the complete inerrant word of G-d (not to be interpretted in modern context) should not be allowed to take advantage of medical advances (afterall, they might engage in risky behavior that lands them in the hospital)
Posted by: ol cranky | November 01, 2005 at 09:01 PM
And in keeping with the push toward Theocracy, another constitutional amendment. Congress shall make no law which circumvents the word of God.
Posted by: aflounder | November 01, 2005 at 10:13 PM
Vital processes are a prior condition for all immoral behavior. The government should shoot everyone just to be safe.
Posted by: theogon | November 01, 2005 at 10:27 PM
Yep, aflounder, the Iraqi Constitution is a wonderful model for the American.
Posted by: theogon | November 01, 2005 at 10:28 PM
Thank you:
>Vaccination sends mixed messages, generally. On the one hand, we're telling the kids "Don't put that thing in your mouth, you don't know where it's been!" But by vaccinating them, we're basically saying it's A-OK to lick rusty cans.
This is absolutely an apt analogy. It's exactly the same principle. It drives me absolutely crazy that instead of following the Netherlands' example (sex education, including condoms, resulting in 1/10 of the teen pregnancy rate we have), we... well, what are we doing again?
Posted by: 1984 Was Not a Shopping List | November 02, 2005 at 01:51 AM
" instead of following the Netherlands' example"
Ever since the right learned that 1/3 of the Netherlands is secured by dikes they have been averse to anything Dutch.
Posted by: Njorl | November 02, 2005 at 10:37 AM
If you follow the link in the "Danger is good" article to "The end of courtship" by Leon Kass, you arrive at the following quote by the former char of the PCBE:
"Training for careers by women could be postponed until after the early motherhood years"
He also calls for a 'restoration of ... female modesty,' and says that it is in the 'truest interest' of women to subordinate themselves to parents wishes regarding their partners: i.e. "Not without my parents' blessings".
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001161.cfm
Wow.
Posted by: Alexander | November 02, 2005 at 12:18 PM
We should stop all vaccinations. IF G-d wants your child to die of whooping cough, who are you to stand in Her way?
Posted by: Peter vE | November 02, 2005 at 12:21 PM
Seatbelts too. They only encourage reckless driving. They need to go.
Posted by: blah | November 02, 2005 at 01:01 PM
I agree. It's time we stopped allowing cancer treatment for smokers, or insulin for overweight type II diabetics, or heart treatment for people who don't exercise.
We don't want to encourage these behaviors, do we? Isn't is irresponsible to allow these people to think they're entitled to put thmselves at risk?
Posted by: Diana | November 02, 2005 at 02:35 PM
And if women get raped, they deserve cervical cancer, because men wouldn't rape women unless they were subtly asking for it in the way they dressed or behaved.
Posted by: Michael Schmidt | November 02, 2005 at 02:45 PM
How about a cure for AIDS, would that be allowed by these pathetic religious freaks. No I guess not. Well maybe it's ok so long as the pasty douch at Target gets to decide who gets to live. Nothing like ignoring science to endager your own kids. Teaching abstinence alone is spreading more disease and creating more teen pregnancy than ever. Oh sorry that's scienc again. Ouch. Keep singing in the choir and maybe it can drown out the idea that your daughter might actually have sex. I never met a stripper or prostitute that didn't say she came from a strict or "Religious" family.
Posted by: mparker | November 02, 2005 at 04:56 PM
Oh dear. They'll quote you on this as if you mean it....
Posted by: Joel Sax | November 02, 2005 at 06:12 PM
Oh dear. They'll quote you on this as if you mean it....
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Otherwise-moonbat Lindsay Bayerstein agrees with me that..."
Posted by: theogon | November 02, 2005 at 06:54 PM
>" instead of following the Netherlands' example"
>Ever since the right learned that 1/3 of the Netherlands is secured by dikes they have been averse to anything Dutch.
Then the administration favors global warming because they think it might flood Dutch Lesbians?
Posted by: 1984 Was Not a Shopping List | November 02, 2005 at 10:17 PM
is Lindsay politically correct?
Posted by: cooldown | November 04, 2005 at 08:43 AM