All Comments for: 'Safe Sex' for the Whole Nation | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2007 |

'Safe Sex' for the Whole Nation

Why mandating the HPV vaccine is not a good idea.

A Christianity Today editorial | posted 3/22/2007 08:44AM

On a recent episode of Friday Night Lights, mother Tami Taylor tries to talk her 15-year-old daughter out of having sex with her boyfriend.

The second thing that pops out of her mouth is a warning about ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 31 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Kelly

Posted: April 02, 2007 9:50 AM

If your partner has ever had sex, you should consider the vaccination. I have a family member who has only had sex with one person - her husband. Unfortunately, as a newlywed her symptomless new husband passed HPV along to her. I don't know if she was aware of his sexual activity prior to their marriage, but she was most certainly aware of it after they were married. It is difficult these days to find another virgin to marry, and that's just being realistic.

drjay58

Posted: March 30, 2007 5:42 PM


The position taken on the vaccine sounds very much like refusing to purchase automobile insurance as a way of preventing accidents. Funny thing--just saying no doesn't cause fewer accidents either on the road or in the bedroom

Jenn	Posted: March 27, 2007 4:10 PM

My understanding as a Christian is that humanity is totally depraved. We live in a fallen world. The creators of secular tv shows, magazines, movies, etc. are not necessarily all followers of Christ. With that said, there's little reason that they be "not primarily worried about emotional entanglements or personal integrity or dishonoring God. Just disease." People who aren't Christians aren't called to the same standard as we are. They don't care what God desires for His children and that God's best regarding sex means "only in the confines of marriage." Until we are in eternity with Jesus, there will always be sex outside the marriage context, so why should we be surprised that nonbelievers (and believers alike) will continue to struggle with pre-marital or non-marital sex? Therefore, let's not only share the good news of our redemption through Christ but let's also fill an immediate health need to shorten cancer's ability to ravage our family and friends! I’ll take a cancer vaccine.

David Shores

Posted: March 27, 2007 1:36 PM

HPV infection is a serious public health risk. I believe vaccination of pubescent girls should be encouraged but not mandated. I am also a Christian who believes in sexual purity for both men and women. In a perfect world there would be no concern for HPV or any sexually transmitted disease. But the human race is sinful by nature; we will break God's laws. God provided us with explicit rules for sexual conduct which he revealed in the Bible. Protecting oneself (and our daughters) from a known health risk that causes pain, sterility, cancer, and death is a WISE decision. I pray that my daughter will remain sexually pure until marriage; I am raising her with that expectation. But I have little imfluence over the decisions her future husband will make. HPV could also be contracted through forced sexual contact (rape). The HPV vaccine could be beneficial in both of these instances. When presented in this way, I do not believe it encourages sexual activity.

Shirley

Posted: March 26, 2007 12:03 PM


I am confused by your article--does "opt in" mean you are pro giving this vaccine to young girls? I would like to know if your are for or against! Thank you.

Pastor Diane

Posted: March 23, 2007 10:44 PM

As a rape victor I applaud this effort to safeguard ALL our young women from a virulent that can cause cancer and sterility. Many young women do not have a say when or how they will experience their first sexual encounter. They will not necessarily know the sexual history of the men they marry. Protection from HPV is not a license to commit fornication, but a protection against unwanted (or unwise) sexual activity.

sylvia Gibbs

Posted: March 23, 2007 8:25 PM


At the risk of sounding sexist why aren't we investing more money in ways to detect HPV in men and treat them rather then demanding the we vaccinate our daughters. Our girls just don't wake up with HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and it is unfair to begin to treat it by vaccinating girls t it instead of finding ways to detect HPV in men and treating it.

David

Posted: March 23, 2007 6:10 PM


This is purely a public health issue, like TB or polio. If HIV, herpes, etc. hasn't scared people HPV isn't going to phase them. The only possible Christian response to communicable disease is to implement the best possible public health strategy.

D. Thompson, MD

Posted: March 23, 2007 3:16 PM

The CT editorial makes a compelling case for the universal use of this vaccine (and presumably the improved versions which will follow) noting the facts of sexual activity by evangelical teens (just in case we only care about our own kids) as well as the issues of rape, incest and sexually experienced or unfaithful spouses. In a complete non-sequiter the editor then concludes that we should at least consider withholding the vaccine because. . um because. . well I could not find a reason, just an expression of frustration with our hypersexual culture. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion voiced in other comments that the subtext is similar to one voiced by evangelicals regarding gays and HIV: if "they" are going to behave like "that" then they deserve to suffer from HIV--now cervical cancer.

Kurt Peterson

Posted: March 23, 2007 2:26 PM

"Given our culture's commitment to people's right to practice safe sex at any age, and our culture's assumption that human beings, like animals, are utterly subject to their passions, mandating this vaccine makes sense." Foolish comments like this in rags like CT make me want to turn in my evangelical ID card. Married, monogomous, evangelical women get HPV too, and contract cancer, and die. This vaccine could significantly lower the chance of women dying from cervical cancer--even the ones who are unclean and unworthy by the judgmental moral standards of CT's editors. Making HPV vaccination about safe sex, promiscuity, bad parenting, divorce, and whatever other puritannical touchstones CT's edtiors want to throw in, is absurd. While some good arguments may exist against the widespread use of an HPV vaccination, none of them appear in this editorial. The magazine should feel ashamed for publishing this unsigned editorial as represenatives of a team of your editors.

cb	Posted: March 23, 2007 1:05 PM


I have 1 daughter i would not even have to think about giving it to her if there is a chance it could keep her from getting cervical cancer. My husband is a pastor, i think you have to get past the belief that you are ok her to have sex, that is not what you are doing you are trying to protect her life, i think it should be a choice to get the shot or not.

Victoria

Posted: March 23, 2007 12:52 PM

Aside from the fact that no one has the right to water down God's word to suit their "modern idea" of what scripture states. That being simplified; that a woman should remain clean and pure before mariage. No democratic government has the right to force it's citizen's to drug their children. No matter what the drug is, how wonderful they think it works, or how much money a pharmacutical company stands to gain from it. Parents and children through prayer and consideration should decide what is right for them before God. If you are raising your children in the way in which they should go, then you are teaching them that what is MOST important in life is how they honor God, how they honor their family, and how they honor themselves. Teach your son from birth to honor and respect God's word and will for his life and teach your daughters the same. Tell your government to stay out of your family's personal business and get your spiritual house in order.

Renee

Posted: March 23, 2007 9:54 AM

It's not really about safe sex. The truth is, a woman can have sex with only one man and still get HPV and cervical cancer. Even if she abstains until marriage, she is still at risk unless her husband has also abstained. He should. But suppose he didn't? Why let whether or not she is at risk be defined by his past? So why not let your daughter have the vaccine so that whatever the choices in life, whoever she ends up with, if she is raped, she has a better chance of not contracting cervical cancer? And it's not just about your daughter but those who will have unchaste sex. Do you really want them to get cancer because you preferred not to have a mandatory vaccine? I feel the topic shouldn't bring so much outrage. If anything, it's us Christians who have promoted HPV as a reason to be chaste. You're right in that we need sexual purity for ourselves and then impact on our cultures. But the issue goes deeper than sexual purity. Our fear only shows our insecurity about practicing our faith

Christian Pediatrician

Posted: March 22, 2007 10:45 PM

Yes, the vaccine is expensive; yes, the raw numbers of cervical cancer appear low. But the cost of repeated pap smears and other procedures to treat the precursors of cervical cancer is very high in this country, and this vaccine will result in great savings. Yes, my young daughters will be taught the virtues of abstinence and chastity. They will also receive this vaccine at age 11 because the fact is that even if they are abstinent until marriage, their future husbands may not have made the same choices. Should this be a school requirement? Probably not, but all states now require Hepatitis B vaccine for school entry, and that is a disease transmitted by sexual contact and blood exposure. School requirements are simply a means of reaching the greatest possible numbers from a public health perspective, not for preventing only diseases that are "readily communicable" like measles. The real issue is whether this will be made available to those in poverty.

Robin Smith

Posted: March 22, 2007 9:35 PM

I didn't even read the editorial because, frankly, I think any opposition to something that can prevent cancer is ....well, stupid. Have any of you oh so righteous people even thought about RAPE? I had a member of my congregation, who on her first exam in connection with her first very happy pregnancy, discovered that as a result of a rape she had suffered several years before, she now had cervical cancer. She was faced with the horrific choice of terminating the pregnancy, or continuing at terrible risk to both herself and the child, and then, assuming that she was able to bring the pregnancy to term, being immediately separated from her newborn child to undergo radiation therapy for the cancer which meant, of course, that her first child would also be her last. She brought her child to term, an infant daughter taken by c-section as soon as she was judged viable because the cancer had become too aggressive. Do you think she will hesitate one second to have her vaccinated? Guess again

William

Posted: March 22, 2007 7:23 PM

Your editorial comments regarding the HPV vaccine are a serious disservice to your readers. This issue quite simply is a matter of public health.What it comes down to is this: medical science has developed a vaccine that can prevent the spread of a viral infection that is frequently the cause of a terrible disease-cervical cancer. This disease is responsible for many deaths which can now be prevented. To oppose the use of a lifesaving tool like this vaccine is highly unethical in my view. Anyone advocating the withholding of polio vaccine from infants would be considered nuts. I have to view those opposed to the use of the HPV vaccine in a similar light. I'm strongly in favor of teaching Godly values to our young people on all matters-including sexual activity. But, to limit young girls access to this lifesaving vaccine runs totally contrary to every precept of sound public health policy that I can think of. Opposition to routine administration of the HPV vaccine in the US is wrong!

mike	Posted: March 22, 2007 5:20 PM

i used to work with crisis pregnancy centers promoting abstinence in schools. i also did a lot of work with true love waits while i was a youth pastor. but i stopped. why? because teaching abstinence only delays sexual activity for about 8 - 18 months according to studies. at least with the kids i worked with i found that i was better off helping them learn "safer" sex than crossing my fingers and wishing that they wouldn't have sex at all. the church needs to face reality here. i don't think the vaccine should be manditory, but the resistance coming from the Christian Right is backward and idealistic.

Paul	Posted: March 22, 2007 4:14 PM


We have cried for years for a way to cure or avoid cancer. Now when a vaccine that covers most forms of cervical cancer is developed, we whine about whether it will result in sexual promiscuity. The attack is mis-directed. Train your weapon on the adult society that lacks the courage to tell its children how to dress and behave.

Jaxon

Posted: March 22, 2007 4:08 PM

I think it's great to give my daughter live cancer virus, genetically modified and CDC approved. I believe everything the pharmaceutical companies do is altruistic and good. I believe the hundreds of reports of severe adverse reactions in young girls, and the crazy beliefs that we don't know what will happen in the long run and the conspiracy theories that this new HPV vaccine is only a way for Merck to make up for the billions they lost on Vioxx is all liberal hogwash. We, as Christians need to believe without question anything and everything the government and authorities tell us. We need to allow the State to help us raise our children by raising our children for us in the godly public school system. If you don't get your daughter vaccinated with Gardasil, you are with Al-Qaeda and Rosie O'Donnell.

Mike	Posted: March 22, 2007 2:37 PM

I don't believe a "they're gonna do it anyway" mentality is healthy at all. It is so important for parents and Church communities to have open discussions about sex-highlighting relationship with God, with others, then with consequences. While people should be able to choose to get this vaccine, it is wrong to mandate it, first of all because not everyone needs it (many do live chastely), second- it's a multi-billion dollar set up (impure motive for mandating it) and third-it is an affront to personal conscience to force parents to administer it. This is not the genocidal epidemic some make it out to be.

dipaolor@yahoo.com

Posted: March 22, 2007 12:58 PM

It’s time CT stopped publishing knee-jerked reactions to the cultures “knee-jerk reactions”. CT repeatedly claims (as Jeff points out) that our culture is confused about sex without offering any evidence to support this overly broad/sweeping statement or bothering to explain exactly what aspect of sex the culture is confused. The realization by our culture that unprotected sex can kill you and the (even if mislead) to do something about it, rather than simply telling people not to have sex reflects not confusion but clear headed realism. On the one hand, CT seems upset that the proposed measures go too far, while on the other hand CT complains ad nauseam that tackling only disease does not go far enough. The fact that the “morals” of evangelicals, at least when it comes to sex are no different than that of the broader culture, would seem to be reason enough to encourage people, including evangelicals to at least protect themselves from a disease that might otherwise kill them

Daniel

Posted: March 22, 2007 12:22 PM


Offer the vaccine yes make it complulsory NO! The word needs to get out much more forcibly that condoms are no sure defense against STDs. Also the Christian community does need to get its own house in order. But we must recognize that Christian teens get much of their attitude from Christian adults who sex and marriage far too causually.

MPK	Posted: March 22, 2007 12:15 PM

I must agree with other comments that bring up the fact that many innocent young women become the victims of HVP not because of personal choices and irresponsibility but because of rape and unfaithful spouses! I think rather it is CT who is having the "knee-jerk" reaction to the vaccination. Its seems pretty plainfaced that the Christians who oppose the vaccination are simply afraid that without the scaretactics of STDs, they'll lose the war for abstinence. I refuse to give up hope that if we are truly committed to spiritually forming our young people that they we can make wise choices about sexuality.

Ted	Posted: March 22, 2007 12:14 PM

If "The sexual behavior of Christian teenagers is unfortunately not all that different from that of their non-Christian peers," part of the blame may be placed on parents, but parents are working against the combined influence of the entertainment industry, the mainstream press, and the schools. That is why it is compassionate to work to change the culture teesn are exposed to. One of the ways parents can do that--for the sake of their offspring or, if they are homeschooled or in a reliable Christian school, for the sake of their neighbours' chidren-- is to try to inflence school curriculum. Right now, there is a widespread move in the schools to send the wrong messages about sex to children and youth--including but not limited to the pro-homosexual curriculum. Parents need to wake up to the pervasive influences their children are exposed to.

Anonymous

Posted: March 22, 2007 11:51 AM

I am a person who was a virgin when I married. I have contacted HPV through my husband who was married once before our marriage (he didn't know enough about his former spouses lifestyle!) . You need to do more research! My doctors have said it is also able to spread by things like toilets. Now, while it is more likely to spread through sexual contact, it is important to know what you are dealing with. As a very moral person this has been devistating to me however, I know that God has a wonderful plan and will make this turn out for His good.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment