17 October 2012

Question: Should sex outside of marriage be a capital offense? (2)

The sub-title to this article in The Guardian poses a trick question: "are they anti-cancer, or just anti-sex?" The "they" being referred to, of course, are conservatives. And the answer is obvious.

There is a vaccine against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) but, since the virus is sexually transmitted, the immediate reaction of, well, . . . reactionaries, is that making it available to teenagers will encourage promiscuity. As I noted several years ago, this simply is a declaration that pre-marital sex is a capital offense, since the virus is viewed as causing not just genital warts, but cervical cancer. Why help prevent cancer when you can instead be extra sanctimonious? And now that there is actual research establishing that reactionary fears are just that, why not be sanctimonious in the face of reliable evidence?

Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home