James Dobson to Go Off the Air

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Influential conservative leader James Dobson is planning to go off the air, his ministry reported Friday.

In an announcement, Focus on the Family announced Dobson’s intention to remove himself as the primary radio voice of his daily radio broadcast at the end of February but made clear that the move was not prompted by health concerns.

Dobson remains "a man of health and vigor," Focus on the Family president and CEO Jim Daly reported.

"The Bible tells us that to everything there is a season – and Dr. Dobson's season at Focus on the Family has been remarkable," Daly added.

Dobson, who founded Focus on the Family, has been with the ministry’s radio program since it began airing in 1977, providing daily encouragement and advice to families worldwide and speaking out on moral issues.

The 73-year-old conservative leader resigned as president of the prominent organization in 2003 and later as chairman in February of this year as part of a plan to pass on the leadership to the next generation.

"One of the common errors of founder-presidents is to hold to the reins of leadership too long, thereby preventing the next generation from being prepared for executive authority," Dobson said in a statement earlier this year.

Dobson is the latest among older conservative evangelical leaders who have let go of the reigns of their influential ministries.

Widely respected Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ; Dr. Jerry Falwell, who rallied conservatives to the political arena; and Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries, are a few of those who have passed in recent years, and evangelist Dr. Billy Graham has left his evangelistic association to the leadership of his son, Franklin Graham.

Concerned about the future of the conservative Christian movement, Dobson – during Kennedy's funeral in 2007 – posed the inevitable question of who will carry on the work of defending biblical values, the unborn, the institution of marriage and traditional morality.

He expressed hope that the younger generation would heed the call.

Today, Focus on the Family's radio program reaches more than 220 million people in over 155 nations.

Next Story : When We Doubt

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2

believer »

Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, considering they didn't show any major brands such as Trojan I guess you'll have to take my word for it since I have no reason to lie to you about it!! Went to that site and they said the same thing I already shared, but I did find it interesting who they consider to be Christian Fundamentalists! Methodists!!!
ifeelfine72 »

Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:10 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer: Here's one site. http://calorielab.com/news/2006/08/29/lard-have-mercy-the-christian-obesity-epidemic/

Anyway, the condom thing was YOUR burden of proof. The examples I showed didn't have the disclaimers you claimed were there. So, where are they?
BDawgC »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:09 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Oh! For crying out loud! All that seems to go on is people posting just to see their own words! So far there have been only 2 posts about Dr. Dobson!

Christian or non-christian alike.. Its hard to tell you guys apart sometimes because all that seems to happen on this site is post for the sake of arguement!

Proverbs 10:19 (New International Version)

19 When words are many, sin is not absent,
but he who holds his tongue is wise.

Proverbs 23:9 (New International Version)

9 Do not speak to a fool,
for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

Here's something to think about.. We are blessed so that we can be a blessing. Until you've blessed someone it's hard to speak into their lives. They don't care what you know until the know that you care. They want people to SHOW them Christ.. Not TELL them Christ!

Honestly guys.. Its hard to tell the Christians from the unbelievers on these posts! Vain arguements do none of us good! Bickering and nit-picking? Where is Christ in that?

And we wonder why those who have yet to surrender to Christ have issues with us..

Anyway, I hope some of you take this to heart before we get involved with vain arguements because in most cases they do not promote the kingdom of God or His Gospel..

God bless!
Daniel Paul »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:35 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Just FYI, Dobson often spoke out about obesity and the stewardship of our bodies and of our children.
believer »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:34 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, plus this report noted the Afro-Americans and especially men who mainly belonged to one of these groups of Baptists had the highest rate of obesity!!
believer »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, found a website that said Southern, North American, and Fundamentalist Baptists had the highest obesity rate among Christians. Two problems there are many in the Southern and North American Baptists who do not consider themselves to be Fundamentalists or Evangelical. Plus, this is among Christians and other religions and does not include non-religious people.
believer »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:16 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, please cite your source with regards to this obesity claim and especially since f&e is a term made up by al? Hopefully, it's better then that condom site you sent me to!!
Daniel Paul »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:23 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

72---We're the one's with the potluck dinners!!!! Ever been to a Southern Baptist potluck supper??? At least the Pentecostals and Charismatics run it off during the service.... Ever wonder why some churches fellowship halls are bigger than their sanctuary's?

Part of it too is that within the lower income bracket less is spent on healthy food and healthy cooking, right? That's why many programs target the "less fortunate". Many, many people who attend church fall into this area.
ifeelfine72 »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:01 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: You might want to check your math. A higher percentage (not number) of F&E's are obese as compared to the rest of the population. It wouldn't matter if there were 1M or 100M F&E's the percentage would stay the same.

It is interesting that you claim a higher percentage of the population is F&E when you think it serves your purpose but otherwise are very exclusionary (Roman Catholics, JW, LDS, etc not being F&E in most F&E's books).
Daniel Paul »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:58 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine72 »Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:22 am
"Also, F&E Christians are more likely to be obese than the rest of the population (sin?) and I've been all over the US - trust me, you guys got it bad! :)"

It's all those potluck suppers!!! Ever seen a potluck supper without soda/coke/pop?

Seriously though, F&E makes up the largest segment of society so it would stand to reason that we would have a higher percent. Our pastor just got done a few weeks ago with a sermon on steardship of your physical health complete with a sheet from a nutritionist on do's and don'ts that was both sides of a lettersheet. Even if you are your ideal body weight you can still be a bad steward of your body. Food is an area where 99.9% (guess) of Americans are poor stewards. (Yes, poor stewardship is sin.)
Daniel Paul »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:48 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

garageguy »Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:13 pm
"A single mother can do that.
A single father can do that.
Adoptive parents can do that as can biological.
Godparents can do that.
Grandparent(s) can do that, and often do when the actual parents flake out.
And yes, gay people can do that too."

Actually, having been a single custodial dad I would take issue with you on this. Working with children who are being raised by their grandparents I would take issue with you on this. Knowing families who have adopted I can take issue with you on this. Ect.

Allow me to explain. The point you are missing is that children thrive in an environment where their biological mother and father are committed to each other and to their children. With children of single parents there is the question in the back of the mind that always says "they promised not to leave each other. What's to keep them from turning their backs on me?" I saw it in my own kids and in far too many kids. These children have a difficult time relying on others which is now being reflected in our society over the past 30 years.

To a child, being raised by their biological mother and father is the "gold standard". Why? Beats me. It's just there. This is why many, many adopted children seek out their birth parents because they have questions about who they are. This is why most children who have step parents say "your not my mother/father". In our case, our wedding voes had some to the children where we said that my wife was the "mother of the home" who was there to help me parent and be a mother for them in the home.

As for gay parents...I feel the same as I would for single parents. Children need both a male and female perspective on life. Men and women do not think the same way. There is a great difference in perspective. Outside of a mom and dad...this perspective is just not there.
rj78 »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:55 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Farewell, and thank you, to a faithful servant of God for defending the family and society.
believer »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:45 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, found that site which showed only one back of a wrapper from 1979 which said nothing about preventing pregnancy but only about preventing disease plus I did not recognize the brand names of any of them.
believer »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:28 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, thanks for the link and please share how I have ever rubbed homosexuality in the face of homosexuals?
ifeelfine72 »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:56 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

BTW: believer, I'm glad that you take care of yourself - your kids and grand kids (if you ever have them or have them now) will appreciate that! :)
ifeelfine72 »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:55 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

believer: Good memory. I didn't lose a ton of weight (45-50 lbs) but I now weigh 145 lbs (I weighed myself yesterday) - I'm 5-10.5 in terms of height. Plus, I nver really considered myself obese - just overweight. I put on a some weight in college and when my folks passed away and when my wife was dealing with her cancer. As for my bringing it up, I could do the same thing with homosexuality to you - you're not gay but you certainly seem to rub that in gay folks faces a lot.

As for the link, fine if you're too lazy to look it up too, here it is: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=condom&w=57333701%40N00
Gibbons Family »

Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:29 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Flagged as inappropriate. show "Your poorly-thought-out view asserts that a neglectful, slovenly, abusive male-female heterosexual couple is somehow better than a loving, nurturing, stable homosexual couple." It's obvious to right-minded people, that the Left (including the homosexuals who troll through this site for some odd-ball reason), constantly use misinformation and misinterpretation to promote their propaganda. It is also become apparent to more of us that these tactics have been very successful with many people in the past. It's obvious from my comment, "Even if both parents are physically present, but one is not fully present because of disease or irresponsibility, this too is an incomplete family and not the healthiest environment for anyone to live in.", that I consider it to be an unhealthy environment when parents are not getting along or one parent is harming the family by acting irresponsibly. It's obvious that I believe that children fare better with both their natural parents (even if only one of their parents is stable), than with only one of their parents. The evidence all around us is obvious. I said we've hit the bottom when innocent children are put in a building with two perverts instead of in a nice warm home with two normal married people. We should be thankful for Dobson who fought for healthy families rather than cater to the sick and depraved activists. You started your post by attacking my comment, "A complete family is a father, a mother, and their children. This is the healthiest environment for children to grow up in, and the healthiest environment for everyone to live in.", and then attacked my view as being poorly-thought-out. My comment was carefully thought out and I think most reasonable people would agree with me. Children in unstable homes and homes with perverts, later tend to get into trouble or engage in deviant behaviors themselves - something none of us want. Lastly, there is no such thing as a "stable homosexual couple". Someone who engages in homosexual acts is very sick and unstable. So I don't know why you're disagreeing. TGF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christians should flag the most vile posters on sight and without further comment, rather than encouraging their disruptive behavior (ie. repeatedly posting obscene comments and flagging fellow Christians), by constantly arguing with them over the same truths in God's Word whom they ridicule. hide
believer »

Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, I don't know since the scale we have won't tell me how much I weigh!! LOL!!! But now I remember that you used to be quite the porker yourself but your claim to fame is you lost a ton of weight!! And apparently that gives you permission to accuse f&e Christians of having the corner on the market with obesity. Plus, you said you googled and found a site that showed you wrappers from condoms in the 1970s that you said did not show the disclaimer I noted. I then shared how I searched and could not find a site that showed those wrappers and now all of a sudden I've got to prove it to you, it sounds to me like perhaps you never saw those wrappers. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you'll just tell me the website you discovered them on? As for my weight, I ride a stationary bike 6 days a week for 27-29 miles each day and do push-ups and stomach crunches as well, so no I'm not obese at all!!
ifeelfine72 »

Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:51 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

believer: Studies have shown what is pretty obvious to the naked eye at any given f&e church on any given Sunday. Google it (I posed the study here a year or more ago but am too lazy to cite it right now). Are you overweight, believer?

As for the condom wrappers, it's your burden of prove - I called bs once and was right so its up to you to prove that they said it - so far, you haven't shown that legitimate condoms in the 1970's said any such thing about being for novelty purposes, etc.
garageguy »

Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:13 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

"A complete family is a father, a mother, and their children. This is the healthiest environment for children to grow up in, and the healthiest environment for everyone to live in."

No, Gibbons, that shows your short-sightedness on this issue.

The healthiest environment for children is a loving, stable, nurturing home where they are fed and clothed and housed in a way that meets or exceeds all of their developmental needs. Period.

A single mother can do that.
A single father can do that.
Adoptive parents can do that as can biological.
Godparents can do that.
Grandparent(s) can do that, and often do when the actual parents flake out.
And yes, gay people can do that too.

Your poorly-thought-out view asserts that a neglectful, slovenly, abusive male-female heterosexual couple is somehow better than a loving, nurturing, stable homosexual couple.

Think that through!
believer »

Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, and just how did you determine that f&e folks have the corner on the obesity issue? I have seen a whole lot of obesed unbelievers as much as I've seen believers! Plus, I googled as you shared and found some sites but found none that showed the wrappers let alone the writing on the wrapper or package. One showed the front side of a wrapper but the writing is on the back and it never made the claim to be a 70s wrapper.
ifeelfine72 »

Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

DP: Failure happens a fair amount of time (about 10% of the time) when used improperly - that doesn't mean that pregnancy or an STD happens - it just means that the condom broke, fell off, etc. If used properly, the failure rate is as low as the pill, etc . . . you wouldn't be suggesting education is necessary, would you?
ifeelfine72 »

Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:22 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

believer: I saw the packaging online (just Google 1970's condom packaging). Also, F&E Christians are more likely to be obese than the rest of the population (sin?) and I've been all over the US - trust me, you guys got it bad! :)
Daniel Paul »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

"...but then they cover their behinds by saying if properly used!!"

So, the burden of proof shifts to the user. How many STD's are cause by kids not even reading the directions? Does anyone really think that most kids are going to read the directions???

Besides, who thinks that "product failure" doesn't occur sometimes?
Gibbons Family »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:55 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 4

Flagged as inappropriate. show A complete family is a father, a mother, and their children. This is the healthiest environment for children to grow up in, and the healthiest environment for everyone to live in. A broken home, broken by divorce or death is a family, but incomplete and not the healthiest environment it could be. Even if both parents are physically present, but one is not fully present because of disease or irresponsibility, this too is an incomplete family and not the healthiest environment for anyone to live in. It is completely irresponsible to deliberately place innocent children in an unhealthy environment, where two stable parents, a father and a mother are not present. Pretending unselfishness but out of total selfishness, many innocent children have been put into unhealthy homes. One of the RFHA's constant pieces of propaganda since the 1970's has been to claim that children are better off in a home with a stable single parent (ie. mother) than in a home with two parents, when one of these parents is unstable. As this aspect of their larger interconnected campaign continued, they denounced the phrase "broken home" and promoted the "village" ideal (ie. a beautiful fantasy that actually meant state-control), "extended families" (ie. Grandmothers doing the parenting for the irresponsible baby-boomers), and day-care (originally a stop-gap measure that has morphed into 8-18 hours per day of neglect). Children have been deliberately placed in unhealthy and in increasingly perverted homes, when homes with two normal parents were available. This is because, as with the public schools, we have allowed the deviants to take charge of the child-placement agencies. Decent people need to take back the power over all the social agencies dealing with normal families and children. If the deviants have their way, there soon won't be any normal families or children left. If the republican party isn't up to it, then maybe we do need a "conservative" or traditionalist party. There are people brave enough to face the vomitous posts at CP from sick people who need treatment. And there are people willing to fight these liberal perverts in the schools and in the governments. We just need more of them. God bless the brave and principled James Dobson for all the good work he has done. TGF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most loving thing you can do for your family is to pull them out of the public school system and keep them far away from apostate churches. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/97240/old_homosexual_warning_video/ hide
Daniel Paul »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

"Rhi Bran »Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:06 am
Did you notice I mentioned all Surgeons General up to today? That includes the Bush administrations."

First, I think you mis-understand my position. I am not against sex ed in the schools. We had sex ed in the 5th grade in my school in MN. However, it was NOT X-rated. It was the very basic medical facts which used the term "sperm" and "egg". They said if you wanted to know more (about the mechanics of it) you needed to ask your parents.

The sex ed which is being pushed now throws gas on the hormonal fires teens already are dealing with. This is not helping. Quite frankly, children should be educated in their choices and not encouraged to violate their conscience. This is the problem I have will most of the sex-ed out there. The local schools uses an abstinance based education which also discusses STD's, condoms, pragnancy and the rest. It covers all the bases but also teaches the value of who you are and the value of saving yourself for that one person you will marry. (Isn't it amazing how many guys want to sleep around but only want to marry a virgin?)
believer »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, those are some really old condoms you have there!! Plus, obesity is a nation wide problem, not just here in Appalachia!!
ifeelfine72 »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

believer: I guess we'll just have to take your word for it . . . I just saw some condom packaging from the 1970's and none of them had that disclaimer.

As for the health problems, I've been there with her - the obesity and related diseases are out of control there.
believer »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, and ask your wife what would those be???
believer »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:39 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, when my wife and I used condoms in the mid 70s there were indeed similar disclaimers on condom packs and wrappers as you find on the ones DP referred to and now apparently companies now say they can prevent pregnancies and STDs and they specifically state HIV, but then they cover their behinds by saying if properly used!!
Rhi Bran »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:06 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Did you notice I mentioned all Surgeons General up to today? That includes the Bush administrations.
Daniel Paul »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Rhi Bran »Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:47 pm
I notice that no one wanted to take issue with Dr. Koop, the CDC, and the other Surgeons General..

Sorry for the delay. Tuesday is a long day out....

Dr. Koop's medical data is 20 years out of date. I'm glad we don't do medicine the way they did 20 years ago! There has been quite a bit of data gathered since then.

What I posted from the FDA is recent data from their website. Are they not the ones that regulate that product?

In short, anything is better than nothing where sex and STD's are concerned. Still, this doesn't replace morals. We expect people to be loyal in their marriages (even though that is even becoming a social issue now). My position is to be committed to your marriage even before you marry. It's a matter of love and loyalty.
ifeelfine72 »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:39 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

believer: If you go back and re-read my post (you and DP are both having issues with that today for some reason), I stated that there are several STD's that might not be prevented by proper condom use. While I didn't name them (just alluded to the crabs), here they are now: herpes, crabs and HPV.

As for any past disclaimer, again the BS meter is going off - years ago there were fewer disclaimers, not more. Our society has become more litigious - not less - which is why we have so many disclaimers on everything.

BTW, remember, my wife's family is from right near where you are and judging from the folks I saw, H1N1 is the least of y'all's health concerns! :)
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

norman, no, thank God this man will still allow himself to be used of God in advocating for strong healthy marriages and families. He is only leaving Focus on the Family, he is not leaving the ministry that God has called him to.
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

rhi, I don't argue that people should be taught how to properly use condoms but as I told ifeelfine there is a way it can be done without inadvertently encouraging unmarried people and especially youth to have premarital sex. But I also believe if someone were to sue a condom company because a person got pregnant or an STD, the company would indeed claim they used the condom improperly regardless of the training that the person using the condom received!
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

al, your reasoning for the disclaimer on condoms is something that we can indeed totally agree on!! These companies are simply watching out for their wallets!!
Norman »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:27 pm Agree: 5 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Thank God this man is returing-hopefully to his death bed Anyone that fights so fervently against equal righstsfor all of God's children is evil and wrong. Instead of sending millions to help the homeless and the poor, this man fought a losing fight against millions of gay families and their childen. So misled.... Focus on the Family did not FOCUS on all families-that is bigotry-pure and simple... hide
Alockslee »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:06 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Daniel Paul »
Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 2 Flag

Rhi Bran »Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:28 pm
"When I was leading a nine county program in Texas, we got a video of one of the abstinence based programs. A 12 grader raises his hand and says to the teacher who is lecturing on the dangers of STD's, "think people are going to have sex anyway." The teacher gives him a hard glance and responds, "Well I guess they will just die." Now most people who have sex do not die from it. But the point was to instill fear. Studies shoe that the method is not effective and southern, bible believing, abstinence only states regularly post the highest rates for teen pregnancy and STD."

I was in a bathroom at a gas/conveniece store and there was a condom machine on the wall. Do you know what it said on the sticker? "Not for use in the prevention of STD's". Looks like retail disagrees with you!!! The only thing that is going to lower the issues of sex with teens is morals and values which keep children from getting in that situation in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Response: The reason the disclaimer is there is to avoid liability by the manufacturer against lawsuits when a person claims they used a condom to prevent the spread STDs.

If they didn't have it then they could and would be sued by people who claimed they caught is and the condom company failed to warn them properly.

TFR
Rhi Bran »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:31 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

believer, re: proper use - that is what comprehensive, age appropriate, medically accurate sexuality education is to accomplish.
Rhi Bran »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

I notice that no one wanted to take issue with Dr. Koop, the CDC, and the other Surgeons General..
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

ifeelfine, went over to local store and discovered how these companies cover their back sides with their false advertising. They say their product can prevent pregnancy and transmission of HIV and STDs and then they put in relatively small print, if properly used and then of course fail to define what proper use is. In the words of the Church Lady, "How convenient!!!!"
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, we've got plenty of flu vaccine both regular and swine flu down here in Appalachia and our local hospital is dispensing it on a 24 hour schedule!!
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

ifeelfine, you can do both, teach abstinence only to your kids as well as the safe use of condoms without inadvertently giving them permission to have sex which is my problem with many of the non-abstinence only education programs in many schools. You simply speak to them as two separate issues. One as staying sexually pure until marriage and the other as a birth control alternative once a person gets married! Two separate subjects and two separate classes!
believer »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ifeelfine, apparently some of the condom companies have no problem with false advertising, but in the past companies such as Trojan did indeed have a disclaimer for both pregnancies and STDs on their packages and by the way genital herpes is one of several STDs that cannot be prevented by simply using a condom, not just crabs!!
ifeelfine72 »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:48 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

DP: You're buddy believer stated that . . . that's why my comments were addressed to him. As for your statement about the flu vaccine, I haven't heard that from anywhere else. I did just get off the phone with some of my Canadian co-workers and every one of them had recieved the flu shot - both regular and H1N1.
Daniel Paul »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

"BTW, we're out of flu shots here in Michigan. With a newborn at home, I should have gotten one in the early fall."

Didn't Obama give his word there would be enough flu shots...I guess "read my lips" works both ways....
Daniel Paul »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

Hi, IFF72. Who said the warning was on all condoms packages? As for the machine in the store. It was from a national vending supplier. I have seen the machines from time to time when I travel. There is a strong possiblitity their lawyer told them to put it on the machine to protect them against being sued. So, this means there is a legal risk or it wouldn't be there....
ifeelfine72 »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:26 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

believer: My BS meter was on high alert after reading your comments about all condoms having a novelty disclaimer on them. I was just at the pharmacy at lunch and looked at two different brands and didn't see it on either one . . . BTW, we're out of flu shots here in Michigan. With a newborn at home, I should have gotten one in the early fall.

gem: believer is right in saying there are a few different types of STD's that condoms are only partially effective at preventing and one that they aren't at all effective at preventing (think creepy crawly things).

My kids are going to know that abstinence is the best policy and the only choice mandated by God until marriage but if they do anything, please be mostly protected.
Daniel Paul »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:05 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Hi, Gem. Condoms only "protect" the area they cover. If there is some kind of STD outside that area that is contacted then there is no protection. This is also the case if the condom slides and exposes skin.
Daniel Paul »

Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:55 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

Rhi Bran »Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:57 pm
"Well Dan, I would certainly take the word of a condom machine in one bathroom over the United States Centers for Disease Control, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and every Surgeon General since in both Republican and Democratic administrations."

From the FDA:

"Will a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?
No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.

In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex."
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/byAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/HIVandAIDSActivities/ucm126372.htm#guar

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story