![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Honor Killing is the term used by the Human Right Watch, and by the perpetrators themselves, describing the practice of murdering a woman who has brought dishonor onto the family, usually through unsanctioned sexual activity. Although this National Geographic article is careful to point out that "honor killing" is not in the Koran, it cannot escape the fact that the vast majority of honor killings occur in Islamic countries, is regarded as a family matter and not a criminal matter, and even in countries where the leadership has condemned it punishment remains light and ineffective.
This week, an announcement went out that a vaccine against HPV (human papilloma virus) that had been in review for two years is 100% effective with minimal side effects. This is considered excellent news because HPV is the principal cause of cervical cancer, which kills a quarter-million women a year. It's such a powerful indicator that if a doctor suspects cervical cancer he'll order an HPV test and if the woman doesn't have it he can be confident she doesn't have cervical cancer, either. The vaccine is so effective that many Western governments are looking forward to putting it onto their "required" or "recommended list."
The Family Research Council, a Christian lobby group, has released a statement calling the recommendation "potentially harmful," saying that "abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV" and that young women should not be given the vaccine because "they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." (Okay, ignore the fantasy world the FRC is living in: if the vaccine is 100% effective then abstinence becomes only one way equally effective, not "the best way.")
A quarter-million women a year die of cervical cancer. The FRC, seeking to protect their message, has decreed that those deaths should continue rather than let one more woman be less fearful with her sexuality. In saying so, the FRC betrays both the worst instincts of the monotheistic traditions that came out of Judea and the worst instincts of American culture: It wants to continue the honor killings of women who defy the FRC's sexual mores, but it doesn't want to have to look them in the eye while doing so.
This week, an announcement went out that a vaccine against HPV (human papilloma virus) that had been in review for two years is 100% effective with minimal side effects. This is considered excellent news because HPV is the principal cause of cervical cancer, which kills a quarter-million women a year. It's such a powerful indicator that if a doctor suspects cervical cancer he'll order an HPV test and if the woman doesn't have it he can be confident she doesn't have cervical cancer, either. The vaccine is so effective that many Western governments are looking forward to putting it onto their "required" or "recommended list."
The Family Research Council, a Christian lobby group, has released a statement calling the recommendation "potentially harmful," saying that "abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV" and that young women should not be given the vaccine because "they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." (Okay, ignore the fantasy world the FRC is living in: if the vaccine is 100% effective then abstinence becomes only one way equally effective, not "the best way.")
A quarter-million women a year die of cervical cancer. The FRC, seeking to protect their message, has decreed that those deaths should continue rather than let one more woman be less fearful with her sexuality. In saying so, the FRC betrays both the worst instincts of the monotheistic traditions that came out of Judea and the worst instincts of American culture: It wants to continue the honor killings of women who defy the FRC's sexual mores, but it doesn't want to have to look them in the eye while doing so.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 05:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 06:12 am (UTC)It might take a little while to work through the system here in the UK, but it looks like it would be a no-brain mass-vaccination progeramme, made available for free. It would not surprise me at all if the US system of healthcare gave the poor a choice between an expensive vaccination and gambling that they won't develop cervical cancer with even more expensive medical bills.
But we have the Church of England to vaccinate us against the excesses of religion.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 11:01 pm (UTC)And long may it continue to do so. Since I'm in the ECUSA, I'd be *particularly* grateful for a little tolerance and lack of excesses, thanks. And a return to the Via Media, if you don't mind...! :>
(And yes, the nutbars who don't want to vaccinate against HPV are, indeed, raving nutbars.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 06:23 am (UTC)That's right, abortion! And here you thought it'd be something like AIDS, or rape, or spousal abuse, maybe cancer or nuclear weapons? Nope, abortion.
I liked Al Franken's approach to abstinence: Write letters to all the republican government officials who support abstinence education, and ask them for their stories about how they waited until marriage to have sex, so that they can set an example for the young people of america. Not surprisingly, he didn't get any responses.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 03:43 pm (UTC)One newspaper here moaned about giving a vaccine for an STI to 10-12 year old girls when the story first broke, some months ago.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 08:58 pm (UTC)Oh, and Hi. Long time, no see. ;) Ran across the link to this post from
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 09:42 pm (UTC)In the final paragraph, I point out Neanderthal Christians who also advocate that it is preferable women die as punishment for the violation of Christian sexual mores.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-13 05:51 pm (UTC)If a doctor considers a negative HPV-16 result definitive proof of absence of cervical cancer, he's only fit to be a Senate majority leader.
I'm not denying your assertion that the FRC should all be hunted down and eaten, but your message loses impact when your facts are wrong.
"You got a fact wrong." :-)
Date: 2005-10-14 02:06 am (UTC)when I think it's more accurate to call it
the 'Family Research Council' or even
"the self-described 'Family Research Council'". :-)
In other news, I have retitled myself Jesus Christ,
Savior of All, Who You Must Obey Or You Will Undergo
Terroristic Torture Forever In My Loving Hell. And
the FRC damn better not use scare quotes around my name! :-)
Not that I'm annoyed or anything. Good essay Elf!