By Scott Tibbs, February 28, 2007
The New York Times, in predictable fashion, argues that a vaccine against the human papillomavirus be mandatory. I cannot help but be amused as the unabashedly "pro-choice" New York Times advocates that parents not be given a choice in deciding the course of their own daughters' health care. This leads one to question if the Times believes that personal choice is a valid argument only when it comes to terminating the life of an unborn child.
The Times argues that the HPV vaccine will not encourage increased sexual activity among girls. On one level, the argument holds: there are many sexually transmitted diseases out there in addition to HPV, and being immune to one will not erase concerns about the others. Nonetheless, it is foolish to think that taking a cancer-causing virus out of the picture will have no impact on sexual activity.
The HPV vaccine is a public health benefit that I welcome. Next month marks ten years since I was diagnosed with cancer, and I applaud any medical advancement that will reduce the frequency of this disease. Like it or not, people are going to have sex and this seems like a common-sense step to save some lives. We cannot ignore the potential societal effect of the vaccine, however, and it should not be a political tool to advance a Leftist social agenda.
At the end of the day, many parents will decide to immunize their daughters after an objective analysis of the risks and benefits of the vaccine. It should be noted, however, that there is a 100% reliable method to prevent infection from the human papillomavirus or any other STD. First, do not have sexual relations until you are married. Second, choose a husband or wife who has the same values that you do. Third, be faithful to your wedding vows.
The Bible truly does have some wisdom that will benefit society. Whoda thunk it?
