Another day, another gem published in The Chronicle:
Now, for the sake of context, please check out the column that the fine gentleman is referencing. Got all that? Now on to the gem:
Jacqui Detwiler asks “why on earth” parents would not want their daughters spared from STDs (“‘H’ is for ‘Hussy,'” Feb. 28). The condescending rhetoric aside, we know the only sure way of doing that is to altogether avoid premarital sex-not to receive injections of Gardasil. But Detwiler’s column portrays the opponents of forced HPV vaccination as arrogant fools: First, she bills them as ignorant, then as hypocritical, then as self-righteous (an easy stereotype), and finally as motivated by blind fear. In fact, however, there are many people who think that there is something more important than living a sexually active life free of anxiety, more important even than a simple (though essential) resistance to the tyranny of forcing new and unnecessary drugs into the bodies of others.
In truth, many of the people Detwiler criticizes are young girls themselves, often religiously motivated, who want to and will lead chaste lives. Others are the young men who will one day wed these girls. To them, the “hookup” is never an option because they recognize that sex transcends the carnal; the bodies of their future wives are sacred realms into which they dare not trespass without the blessing of the Church and the hand of God for guidance. These should not be forced to waste money and incur health risks for a vaccine that they will never require. They think, as I do, that it is a grave disservice to our country to make public policy on the assumption that our children cannot control their sexual desires. I pray Detwiler will refrain from a pathetic and insulting portrayal of these good men and women in the future.
Justin Noia
Pratt ’09
Justin, honey, I know you’re like, a sophomore, and so I won’t be hypocritical: when I was a sophomore, I said and wrote a lot of stupid stuff too. You are in Pratt, however, and considering how smug engineers are toward us Trini-tards (no offense to mentally challenged people, most of whom are probably better human beings than I, intended), I expected better, to be honest.
I will respond in bullet-form, to make it easy on you:
a) “…many of the people Detwiler criticizes are young girls themselves, often religiously motivated, who want to and will lead chaste lives. Others are the young men who will one day wed these girls.” – This is garden-variety sexism, and most suave anti-boinkers are above that. The girls, you see, are “chaste” – but we don’t mention anything about the guys, other than the fact that they, one day, will want to “wed” these comely madonnas. Please. You’re a Duke student, get your rhetoric right!!! The Chronicle staff that let this one pass into the public realm? They’re all laughing at you right now, Justin. They might talk about “diversity of opinion” and whatnot, but in reality, they just want you make a fool of yourself. And you succeed admirably.
b) “A vaccine they will never require”? What kind of world do you live in, J? You may be too busy envisioning your pure and sacred wedding night, but the rest of us are looking around, and are noticing that… people cheat on each other. That inanimate “sacred realm” you’re harping on about – she (I know it’s hard to think of her as a human being, but for Eru’s sake, try) may very well get cancer, and die, after her dearly beloved succumbs to a little temptation on a Vegas business trip.
c) Speaking of the world we live in… Ever heard of “sexual assault”? I know, I know, you’re convinced that sexual assault is something that happens to drunken “bad girls” as they crawl home at 4 a.m. with a bottle of rum under their arm and their panties on their head (not that this would somehow make it OK to assault a woman – no matter what your high-minded ideals of “purity” require)… But since we’re arguing over whether or not the vaccine should be required for EVERYONE, as opposed to only said “bad girls,” here’s a little wake-up call for you: The majority of women are raped by someone they know and trust. A friend of mine was gang-raped at thirteen by four thugs on the stairwell of her apartment building – perhaps she also deserves to get cancer and die? How about the girl who was raped by her uncle? The girl raped by her teacher? The girl raped by her best friend? Oh, and the one who was forced to do it at knife-point by her, and I know you’ll appreciate this, “Christian” boyfriend? They met at Sunday school! I hate to break it to you, but for as long as sex, in many instances, remains involuntary, so should a life-saving vaccine.
d) It’s funny that you’re not out campaigning against seat-belts, J. I mean, come on, by your own brilliant logic – they encourage a life of speeding, also “free of anxiety” – or relatively free, at least. How about airbags? Or sterile hypodermic needles? – I mean, they might encourage some heroin-addicts to let go of their anxiety! Nicorette gum? It encourages people to lead an anxiety-free “smoking existence”! Flouride? It encourages people to eat sweets with impunity! I won’t even get into something like condoms, fie fie fie!!!
How about we finally come out and say what’s really going on here: J-man thinks that girls who’ve ever had a wee-wee up their hoo-hah are dirty, disgusting little minxes. And they should be punished. Cancer is a wonderful means of delivering said punishment – it’s so much more mysterious and indirect than, say, throwing a bunch of rocks and splitting the minxes’ skulls open. Why, you can practically claim that it’s divinely ordained!
Ah, Duke. The one thing I can say about this place is that it never, ever gets boring. *smoochies*
Natalia A. 
Can one be pro-Gardasil and anti government mandating Gardasil shots? How about for airbags and against government mandating manufacturers install airbags in cars, V-chip in TVs, and child-proof caps in medicine bottles?
And to take it one step further, can one be pro-choice and against Roe vs Wade (because the court usurped the power never given to it by the voters)?
I know one *can* be all that (after all, I am :). But can one be all that and not draw Natasha’s ire?
“Can one be pro-Gardasil and anti government mandating Gardasil shots?”
Sure, because it’s personal choice.
“How about for airbags and against government mandating manufacturers install airbags in cars”
No, because it’s corporate choice, which would never happen.
“V-chip in TVs”
Spying on your kids is generally rather silly.
“child-proof caps in medicine bottles”
Er, why?
“And to take it one step further, can one be pro-choice and against Roe vs Wade (because the court usurped the power never given to it by the voters)?”
No. The function of the court is to determine constitutionality. It determined that state abortion laws violated the right to privacy set out in the constitution. That is not a moral judgment.
Libertarian arguments only go so far…
It’s not ire, it’s more or less amusement.
I think somebody should clue J-Prat in: sacred realms and God’s Hands aside, it only takes one EXPOSURE TO an HPV-infected person’s genitalia (not even penetration) to contract HPV. Not all HPV will put you at risk for later getting cervical cancer, but genital warts aren’t that fabulous, either. Furthermore, it’s a little difficult to stomach this sort of talk from a male — as J-Prat has surely researched this virus, he must know that aside from the strains that cause genital warts, having HPV puts males at no additional risk for cancer or other maladies. It’s just a little gift you can give to any woman you ever have sex with again. You can be chaste-ing your way through your young life and still be susceptible to this virus upon marriage (especially if boys aren’t held to the same “high” standards as girls). And since it’s women who bear the brunt of the serious problems resulting from HPV, I think males of all creeds should put a cork in it and let women talk about what they want for their own bodies. But then, I also feel this way about contraception and abortion, and I know how popular those issues are with pig-headed males.
Score.
So, I just happened to google myself and found this blog. Amen sister. For the record, my copyeditor e-mailed me Justin’s response with the subject line, “Your column generated quite possibly the BEST Chronicle mail EVER.” He was particularly charmed by the “dare not tresspass without the blessing of the church and the hand of God for guidance” line. Ha!
Indeed. It was just so very, very sad.
You know, Justin Noia is my fraternity brother, and I’m annoyed at these obnoxious insults to his religion. Although we disagree on many issues, as I have very liberal stances on many issues, the degradation of his religious beliefs is absolutely shameful. No one is proving anything by trying to stereotype him as a fool, only that they’re without honor in their willingness to manipulate someone who makes his controversial religious beliefs vulnerable in order to support a point he deeply believes in.
That said, I don’t think that either Justin or Natalia has hit the heart of this issue. The defense of a religiously guided lifestyle is only loosely connected to this argument, and attacks against the validity of religious claims are black holes that people absorbed in arguing for mass vaccination should try to avoid.
The real issue at debate is one that is much more recent and relevant to medical ethics. Do people, in fact, have the right to refuse the optimization of their bodies? Let’s use the smallpox vaccine as a parallel, one of the only federally enforced vaccinations. It had a relatively high fatality rate (about 1%), but opposition was overruled by the importance of eradicating the disease from the United States, and later, the world. The HPV vaccine is not part of a CDC eradication campaign against HPV, so the potent medical reason of reducing the spread of the disease is not applicable to the federal government. On the other hand, there are very few serious medical threats posed by the vaccine, so the powerful reason of preventing a high fatality rate is unavailable to the opponents of mass vaccination.
Instead, we have the question of whether or not we can force someone to pay for and receive a vaccine. Do these young women (and men, I’ll remind you) have the right to refuse a medication that has only the possibility of saving their lives? As it now stands, the answer is and should be yes. After all, we have other defenses against cervical cancer that are better established. The federal government should not make vaccination mandatory. However, private institutions may require the vaccination, and medical institutions (including insurance) may advise it. The vaccine is yet young, and more people will warm up to it as time progresses, so there’s no sense in acting rashly about it now.
Trinity ’10
I personally have nothing against Justin’s religion – as I am a religious person myself.
It’s his argument and the way he presents it that I find demeaning and, well, silly.