Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 06, 2017, 07:37:05 AM
-
To be fair many people don't get stats but Phonsie sounds a bit of a prat
http://www.thejournal.ie/hov-bishop-factcheck-3620053-Sep2017/
-
It would seem that his perception of a 30% risk is justification enough for his to have a rant against the joys of sex.
-
Or he decided to present this as a false case to back up his point?
-
Yes, sounds like he's lying.
-
Yes, sounds like he's lying.
NO NO NO! He's NOT lying! He just doesn't know WTF he's talking aboput never having had a F to educate him on what he is talking about.
-
To be fair many people don't get stats but Phonsie sounds a bit of a prat
http://www.thejournal.ie/hov-bishop-factcheck-3620053-Sep2017/
the Priesthood :
An ideal career choice for people who don't know how reality works 👍
-
Phonsie is probably jealous others are having sex and he isn't.
-
Must admit I didn't know there was such a vaccine. Do people just go to their GP and ask for it? (I'm not going to have one now btw, just interested.)
-
Must admit I didn't know there was such a vaccine. Do people just go to their GP and ask for it? (I'm not going to have one now btw, just interested.)
I think the principle is that it is given to prepubescent schoolchildren. Phonsie's "logic" is that schoolchildren will interpret the vaccination as a signal that sexual activity is risk-free and there will thus be uncontrolled shagging amongst 13 and 14 year olds.
-
I think the principle is that it is given to prepubescent schoolchildren. Phonsie's "logic" is that schoolchildren will interpret the vaccination as a signal that sexual activity is risk-free and there will thus be uncontrolled shagging amongst 13 and 14 year olds.
when I was a 13 or 14 year old shagger control was definitely a problem 😛
-
I think the principle is that it is given to prepubescent schoolchildren. Phonsie's "logic" is that schoolchildren will interpret the vaccination as a signal that sexual activity is risk-free and there will thus be uncontrolled shagging amongst 13 and 14 year olds.
They may be offered the vaccination but can't be forced to have it if they don't want it. Not having it won't stop shagging so I don't see how having it will increase the activity.
I thought they all used condoms nowadays - except those who get pregnant of course.
-
I like his logic. "would you get on an aircraft that was 70% safe". Well of course I wouldn't. However if you were one of the 17 out of 100,000 women that get cervical cancer, it's like being told that you have to get on a plane and there's a choice between a plane that is 70% safe or a plane that is definitely going to crash.
-
Not having it won't stop shagging so I don't see how having it will increase the activity.
I was just pointing out what might be Phonsie's perception of the consequences of the vaccination. I think that he thinks that they don't shag now because they fear the possibility of infection. With that fear removed ...
Hence the vaccine is immoral .. and sinful ... and ...
-
I'm not getting into morals of schoolkids but feel that if a vaccine has been made to protect girls, who catch the virus from sex with boys, it might be a good idea to develop a vaccine for boys preventing them from carrying it and passing it on to girls. Or maybe even to other boys if it is sexually transmitted.
-
There is no reason why the vaccine should not be given to both girls and boys. Just giving it to girls will halve the cost - that's all.
I don't think that its a matter of "morals of schoolkids" but of a bishop who appears to think that fear of contracting a disease is a motivation for adolescents to avoid sexual activity and that removal of that fear will result in such behaviour. He wants to prevent girls from having the vaccination in order to protect their moral welfare. I don't think that he is bothered about their health.
-
I think you're right. People used to talk like that about the pill.