Should we allow the use of vaccines for Sexually Transmitted Diseases?

Question

It is no secret that many fundamentalist Christians believe that sexual abstinence is the only acceptable choice for unmarried people. Religious conservatives at the Center for Disease Control (appointed by the Bush administration) are afraid that anything that might lessen the risks of sex might encourage liberal sexual behavior. They have even said that they would seriously consider preventing the distribution of newly-developed vaccines to protect against STDs. Even if we found a vaccine for the HIV virus, they might try to block its use. Is moral opposition to pre-marital sex so important that we should let people die of STDs rather than allow vaccines to be used? Would Jesus refuse to cure people with STDs? I would especially like to hear from conservative Christians and Bush supporters. If you had the power, would you withhold medical technology that could cure STDs?

If you want to see more detailed facts on this, here is a link to a New Yorker article by Michael Specter:
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2006/2006_03_13_bush.html

AuroraDawn: If you click on my link to the New Yorker article, you will see that I am indeed very serious. Bush appointees in the CDC, the FDA, and elsewhere have actually said that they would have to “think long and hard” about releasing this sort of technology. An effective vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV) already exists, and some people are seriously questioning whether it should be used.

charice266: I agree with you that sitting on this sort of technology would be completely crazy, and I’m sure that it that these vaccines will eventually become used, one way or another. My point is this: What sort of minds would even consider trying to block vaccines and cures of this sort?

Answer 1

what you really want to know is would the fundamentalist Christians allow their beliefs to be imparted on people of other religious dominations? I thought the US was a free country, if this is anything to go by its only free if you are a fundamentalist.

Im not Chrsitian and I will be dammed if some bigot is going to take away the avalibility of potentially life-saving treatment from me based on their personal stance.

Answer 2

I'm conservative and a Christian (although I wouldn't call myself a conservative Christian) but I am not a Bush supporter. Hope your still interested in my opinion....

Even though I believe that not engaging in pre-marital or extra-marital sex is the best way to prevent the spread of STD's I would not be against such a vaccine. What happens if say a woman has saved herself for marriage but marries a man with a bit of a history or if one spouse is faithful and the other is not? If we can prevent people from acquiring these diseases, then we should do just that.

Answer 3

People essentially choose to contract an STD or HIV when they decide to fornicate. If they wait until they know a person well enough to get married, the chances of infection drop dramatically.

But, there are children & some others who do not choose to contract these diseases. They should not be punished for the discourtesy of others.

Would Jesus? Dunno. He continues to offer us the choice of Heaven or Hell, & alot of people choose Hell. People know the penalty for murder is death, but they still choose to murder.

Which punishment best fits the crime? Do we withold so people will stop having sex, thus eliminating the need for the vaccine? Or is it more right to offer the vaccine so people can more safely have sex, thus bringing emotional turmoil (& unplanned pregnancies) into their lives & those that love them?

This isn't about the left- or right-wing, it's about what's best for the overall population.

Answer 4

They couldn't stop the release of a vaccine for STDs. I say this AGAIN......

AMERICA IS NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!

Even if the government stopped its release in the US it would be released in other countries and Americans would become outraged and demand it. Sex is not the only way of catching STDs or AIDs. If there were a way to stop it, even the idiot Bush, would release it to the public.
Think about it. If you could be the President in the White House when AIDs would cured, wouldn't you release it? Think of the press coverage and all the speeches you could make!

Answer 5

No, I would not withhold such technology. I do believe pre-marital sex is a sin, but I am not in the business of asking the world's sinners to behave in a Christian manner. I am in the business of asking people to forsake their sin and turn to Jesus. If I can help them live longer, maybe that's a little more time they'll have to turn to Jesus before they die. No way would I assume the role of God in some attempt to punish them for their behavior.

Additional note: This opinion does not apply to distribution of condoms to minors in public school at taxpayer expense. Let them buy their own. This should not be the taxpayer's burden. We taxpayers already pay for condoms at their local public health department, anyway.

Answer 6

Weee...Bush is finding yet another way to impose his sh*t religion on the rest of the country. How exciting. I have to say though, that someone before me (forgot her name sorry) was very very right, the US isn't the only country in the world (they just think they are), heck they aren't even the most technologically advanced. I hope that we can find a cure or Vaccine for AIDS/HIV we could save millions of lives in Africa, India, and even the united states. It would be nice to have fewer worries when it comes to STD's too. Example: my bf is a total skank, he had a whooooole lotta sex before he met me. I am a little worried about having sex with him (don't worry not planning to for a while) because I fear having an STD.

Alos, there are other friggin way's to get STD's. There are also other ways to get AIDS/HIV.

Answer 7

Should a person who was raped and caight an STD be refused treatment? No, / she shouldn't. To h*** with what christians and bush lovers think. It is not right to punish someone for something that they could not help. And if a christian child wants to have sex, then maybe they don't follow god as closely as everyone wants them to. HAte to sayit but TEENAGERS ARE SOME OF THE BIGGEST REBELS YOU WILL EVER MEET. They will do stupid things and not care about the consequences unitl something happens.
I believe that those vaccines should be out for those who need them. Especially those who are raped and caught something. It is not fair to them tat they need to suffer with what happend to them in such a way.

And no, I would not withhold the technology that could one day help save my own child one day when i have them.

Answer 8

i dont know if i should answer this question but i am tempted to as a research scientist myself.

well first of all let us think about those people who have infected. they need help. although may pro-inhibitory enzymatic meds have been produced they can only lessen the agreiviated pain and suffering. it is totally hard to completely stop a HIV as it takes 5 years to replicate and it uses the host's own biological system (ceelular DNA and protein).

so if it is going to be of any help to people who are already suffering, then it would be nice. but let me tell u, such drugs are so costly that poor and middle class couldnt afford to buy them.

and as far as ethics is concerned, it is always better if we stick to one partner. That way we are less prone to AIDS,STDs, VDs. or if people really cant keep themselves in control -- if at all-- then please safe sex.

Answer 9

Definitely, since diseases have proven not to be a deterrent factor for promiscuous sex, then why not to open the doors to medical developments like HPV vaccination?

Answer 10

If the world develop a vaccine, there will be more danger hidden in that. The world is ripe for a mass destruction and God is doing that. Let His will be done.