It’s one thing to prime a situation to decrease the ramifications of purposefully immoral behavior, but another entirely to take precautionary measures for life’s unpreventable accidents.But British immigrant Simone Davis seems unable to distinguish between the two.Davis has met nearly all requirements for U.S. citizenship, but has yet to receive full status because of her refusal to take Gardasil, which has been a required vaccination for female immigrants since 2008. Gardasil is designed to inoculate women against cervical cancer.Davis claims there is no reason for her to take the vaccine because her religious beliefs dictate she must abstain from premarital sex. I can follow that particular train of logic, but Davis also claims taking a vaccine solely designed to target a sexually transmitted disease is a sin, meaning it violates her Christian beliefs. This is where she loses me.The Alliance Defense Fund agrees with Davis. The organization believes the vaccine would force her to choose between “her beliefs and legal citizenship,” according to the brief filed in support of Davis.This claim, though made with good intent, is flawed.Granted, Davis and I share similar beliefs regarding the role of sex, so I understand where she is coming from. But our opinions differ — concerning Gardasil in particular — given Davis implies immorality is inherent in the pill while I believe there is nothing wrong with the taking the medication.My religious beliefs wouldn’t stop me from taking Gardasil, as if the medication itself is considered morally reprehensible. My religious beliefs simply create a circumstance in which the pill is not necessary. There is an important distinction here, one that is crucial to observe — otherwise, practicing Christians might be shunned for taking an interest in their physical well-being, which could be damaged by an external factor — in this particular case, rape.Precautionary measures are not intended to change someone’s attitude about sex. The attitude is entirely internal.I personally don’t take Gardasil because the risks and side effects largely outweigh the potential benefits. It is simply a matter of analyzing the probabilities of events and the risks of others, then deciding the best course of action from there. Morality only enters the equation as a vague variable at best, but not as a deciding factor.As far as morality is concerned, Gardasil or similar medications are not inherently harmful.My criticism of Davis’ reasoning does not mean I am opposed to Davis skipping out on the vaccine in general. I believe Gardasil is not detrimental in a moral sense, but it can be harmful in a medical sense — its side effects include anaphylactic shock, foaming at the mouth, grand mal convulsion, coma, paralysis and death.  Considering this, Davis would make a better case if she could use the media attention as an opportunity to attack the mandate of Gardasil from a medical perspective. This would be more effective, given medical consequences are easier for a large audience to relate to, as opposed to a single set of rigid moral consequences. And the idea an immigrant might be inadvertently forced into a coma would certainly draw ire from many groups, regardless of their moral viewpoints. It’s an idea many people can get behind.Vaccination mandates by and large should be rejected, but on a medical basis with emphasis on an individual’s right to protect themselves from harmful side effects. Though Davis’ sentiments are understandable, the logic she espouses is not only weak, but will likely have little to no effect, simply because she chose to frame the issue on a shaky argument rather than pointing out genuine medical consequences.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore from Central City. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_lleavines.—-Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]