Vaccinate? Now?

I'm all for vaccination. I don't want my child to get Whooping Cough or Polio. I'm undecided, however, on vaccinating my daughter for HPV. I don't want to give her another reason to decide that sexual promiscuity is acceptable. Let's get this straight: the HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It prevents HPV, and it's good only for 5 years. What are we saying, "Go for it girls, you have five years to go at it?" Now we have even more encouragement for sexual promiscuity with the availablity of the HPV vaccine to males. (In this area, Planned Parenthood is offering it to boys as young as 9.) Males are little more than carriers of HPV, so we're vaccinating men to prevent disease in women. Does this make sense? Here's where education comes in. Don't spread it, and it won't spread.
Call me delusional, and unrealistic. People will be people and have sex, right? Make love, not war and all that sexual revolution garbage? The HPV vaccine helps save lives. We want people to be safe. We ban transfats and make vaccines, but we don't get to the root of the problem. Maybe a future First Lady will work to fight out-of-wedlock sex the way the current First Lady is working to fight childhood obesity (which is an important goal, don't get me wrong).
We all nod and say smoking, drinking, transfats are bad and are health risks, but how many people say "free love" (read sex whenever with whomever) falls in the same category? We have vaccines and pills for that, and if not we can yank out whatever "tissue" we don't want. When are we going to face the fact that there is massive fallout from the sexual revolution? When tween boys and girls are getting vaccinated for an STD, shouldn't someone besides a few blogger admit there's a problem? Go, get your shots if you want. I think I'll try the actual parenting approach and actually teach my daughter what scripture says: Thou shalt not commit adultery, meaning, monagomy is the only acceptable option, sex is limited to the marriage, and anything else is hazardous to one's mental and physical health and, yes, immoral and improper for a child of God.

Oh, That's Just Your Opinion

Today’s guest on Issues, Etc. was speaking about abortion and confusing objective claims with subjective claims. During the conversation the guest mentioned a bumper sticker which said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one,” and indicated that this misses the point of the whole issue. He likened it to saying, “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave,” or “Don’t like spousal abuse? Don’t beat your wife.”
I would glibly offer this statement in response to the original bumper sticker: “Don’t like life? Don’t conceive one.” One on the pro-choice side of the issue might say that this statement is too self-righteously derisive, yet the same person passing judgment on this response would likely not have the same opinion on the original statement. Why is that, do you think? Could it be that one’s right to reproduce and abort is morally acceptable, yet indicating one’s displeasure with such an approach is morally reprehensible?
I will agree that morality cannot be defined by personal opinion if humans are to co-exist and survive to tell the tale. Truly, if morality is defined by personal opinion, then Hannibal Lector is fully self-justified in consuming his victims. After all, they are rude and obnoxious and no one will miss them; in fact, he could be a hero. Oh, wait, there I go again being self-righteously derisive. . .