<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">

    <channel>


	<title>The Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission | Teens face risk as permissive sex yields STDs | Comments</title>
    <link>http://erlc.com/</link>
    <description>This feed provides all comments on &quot;Teens face risk as permissive sex yields STDs.&quot;</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <webMaster>web&#45;master@erlc.com</webMaster>
    <copyright>&#x2117; &amp; &#xA9; 2008 ERLC</copyright> 


		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:57:22 CST</pubDate>
		
    <item>
      	<title>Comment 1</title>
      	<link>http://erlc.com/article/teens&#45;face&#45;risk&#45;as&#45;permissive&#45;sex&#45;yields&#45;stds#comment1</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">http://erlc.com/article/teens&#45;face&#45;risk&#45;as&#45;permissive&#45;sex&#45;yields&#45;stds#comment1</guid>
      	<description><![CDATA[<p>Good article.&nbsp; I have to say I agree with everything EXCEPT the rate of condom failure.&nbsp; Where did that number come from?&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
This is the problem with these abstinence articles/pieces.&nbsp; They convey information that is 99% useful, then undermine the entire piece by attempting to throw condoms under the bus for STDs and pregnancy.&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
It&#8217;s rather obvious that in both scenerios a condom is probably not used.&nbsp; A person has to use a condom for it to be effective.&nbsp; You can promote abstinence without trying to discredit condoms.&nbsp; Last statistic I heard was that condoms have a 99% success rate, but my point is why talk about that at all?&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
If you believe and wish to push abstinence, then do so minus the bashing of other alternatives.&nbsp; Well, that&#8217;s my 2 cents.&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
God bless,
</p>
<p>
Ontay
</p>]]></description>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:57:22 CST</pubDate>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>