I enjoyed the big thunderstorms we got in Michigan so tonight is nostalgic. Lightning, thunder, wind and rain. They say it will continue all night and maybe into tomorrow. But the best part is overnight lows that will be in the 70's for the next few days and highs only in the 90's. The respite is temporary, however; we'll be back to triple digit temps next week.
I had a nice visit with Carl today. Wish he didn't live so far away and we could do it more easily and often.
I didn't watch the Republican debate last night but I read about it today and watched snippets on the news. Gov. Perry took heat for signing an executive order that all girls in Texas get the HPV vaccine at age 12. Michelle Bachmann was on him big time last night for a "big govt." intrusion into family life, and then today addressed the issue again. She said after the debate a woman came up to her and said her daughter had rec'd the shot and then suffered from sudden onset mental retardation.
The problem: several of the major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Emory University School of Medicine are responding that there is absolutely no evidence this or any other vaccine has ever caused mental retardation. The CDC has tracked the vaccine in two different studies and found no adverse side effects except a sore arm.
A too-common blunder on the part of Michelle Bachmann. Common sense dictates you don't repeat what an unfamiliar person says to you until that statement has been vetted.
Which is not to say there aren't significant issues regarding the vaccine.
It all but eliminates the incidence of uterine cancer. Apparently there's a connection between the sexually transmitted virus and cervical cancer. Therefore vaccinating against the virus before sexual activity prevents cervical cancer, as well as several other types of cancer.
The question: should parents have their 12-year old daughter vaccinated? They say 12 because that's before a girl would be sexually active. Many parents object to state mandated vaccination because it presumes their daughter will be sexually active before marriage and therefore at risk of contracting the virus. Christian conservatives are among the most vocal on the topic, hence Michelle Bachmann's rant.
How does that weigh out? Even committed Christians do that which they know they should not do (see Rom. 7). Given the ravages of cervical cancer is it the better part of parental wisdom to have your Christian daughter vaccinated? Or does doing so send the message that you don't really trust her to remain chaste until marriage? Does it amount to tacit permission to be promiscuous?
At this point I give thanks for two things: God gave me sons, and did so long before these issues presented themselves.
If I was the parent of a daughter now... I'd talk to her mother about it!
After that, and if my wife was in full agreement, I think I'd opt for the vaccination. I hope my daughter would be smart enough, and our relationship open enough that she'd understand our desire to protect her against a terrible physical disease through a vaccine while also wanting to protect from terrible emotional and spiritual harm through persistent teaching on chastity. Someone could argue that the spiritual teaching is compromised, equivocated by the administration of the vaccine. But when I put that risk against the risk of cervical cancer, and knowing the frailty of the flesh, vaccination seems to be the wiser choice.
Both/and.
Yes, t'ank you, Fadder, for sons!
1 comment:
Being chaste until marriage and then having your spouse as your only sexual partner is no "vaccination" (guaranty) against HPV. The future husband that says "you're the first & only" just might not be the confession that is appropriate. If my daughters were younger than the adults they are, we'd be talking about getting the vaccine for protection in spite of their obedience to His Word.
Post a Comment