As long as we’re going to argue about the issue of women aborting pregnancies, and god knows we’re going to argue about it, it makes little sense unless we put the debate in the right sociopolitical context. For example I’ve always wondered why people who claim to hate abortion also hate sex education. Why oppose a policy that can dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies by reducing risky behavior? I can appreaciate the general ickiness of sex but we’re talking about preventing murders. Priorities, people. Then an amazingly-effective vaccine for human papillomavirus, a primary cause for cervical cancer, came out and the religious right went apeshit against it. Even then everything didn’t became clear until some doofus went out and said what was on the religious right’s mind (via):
Religious conservatives are unapologetic; not only do they believe that mass use of an HPV vaccine or the availability of emergency contraception will encourage adolescents to engage in unacceptable sexual behavior; some have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available.
“We would have to look at that closely,” Reginald Finger, an evangelical Christian and a former medical adviser to the conservative political organization Focus on the Family, said. “With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition” – a medical term for the absence of fear – “would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.” Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control’s Immunization Committee, which makes those recommendations.”
They would oppose an HIV vaccine because it might disinhibit people from having sex with each other. Does that sound reasonable to you? It might or might not be fair to point out that these nimrods run the country, that depends on the president’s degree of born-againness (I would wager that he’s pretty far gone) and the degree to which the president rather than Cheney runs the country.