This is a little late in the day for the Think Again Thursdays feature, but I’ll give it a go…I write and comment, and you, my readers, rally to defend the point in question.
I came across this blog entry, an open letter for a job working for a major birth control peddler. I won’t repost it here, as the entry is no literary repast, full of uncouth condom references and ludicrous claims of “science.” Bottom line, the blogger may, in fact (as her bio says) be opinionated, and perhaps educated in the technical sense, but I invite her to THINK AGAIN.
After her licentious litany referring to various forms of “unreliable” family planning methods–chief of which is withdrawal (the only correct thing in her entire post), she says,
Please know that this rant also applies to Natural family planning/The Rhythm Method (no relation to Rhythm Nation), which are simply other terms for Pull-Out-and-Pray.Those who can’t afford birth control are more likely to resort to methods from before the advances of science and medicine.
Where to begin?
1) It’s not the %#$@! Rhythm Method. Though she refers to science and medicine repeatedly, it’s clear she has no idea what modern Natural Family Planning is, how it works, and the medical professionals who developed it. Though she’s making an effort to be witty and sassy, she ends up looking salicious, daft and dense. Sadly enough, most M.D.’s are about as informed as our dear uninformed blogger.
2) NFP, when used for postponing pregnancy, is 98-99% effective. Yes. Really. Where did she get her stats? Wait, she didn’t refer to any stats. I get mine from clinically approved studies published in international peer-reviewed journals, to start. If you have any studies under your belt, I could guarantee they were funded by Big Pharma and/ or executed poorly (as is most of the data on NFP quoted by her beloved purveyor of carcinogenic pills).
3) The users of NFP are not uneducated, ignorant people. Right, readers? Wait, you can read, can’t you? 
It seems she thinks that you can’t, and that we’re all backwoods people who di’nt git our learn on ’cause we’s spendin’ too much time getting pregnint on acceedent. I’d be willing to bet most users of NFP have college degrees, if not advanced degrees, and are busy and accomplished, though family-oriented, people. You?
I’m sure Rachel would love to get your feedback on her post.
Update: So far my comment has not been approved/ posted, yet a favorable one posted after me has been…Hmm….
Update: Not surprisingly, our anti-fertility bumpkin is not only not posting comments, but consistently posting adolescent replies to my comments. Therefore, I will post the comments/ replies in the combox.
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
How do you explain this? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_methods, the methods you are trying to back have a 5-9% failure rate…which is unacceptable. The last thing this country needs is for 1 in 20 crazy Catholic conservatives to get pregnant by an accident because they continue to refuse to apply 21st century logic to their lives. Go settle with the Amish!!!
Did you check out any of the links from this web site, instead of *Wikipedia*?? Calendar Methods are *NOT* modern Natural Family Planning. The explicit point I make in this link and elsewhere is the people confuse NFP with Calendar, or Rhythm Method, and they’re not the same thing. Also, when you reply, I expect more respect, or else I’ll delete or edit your next comment. Criticism is totally legit, but derogatory statements like “crazy Catholic conservatives” or “Go settle with the Amish!” are not. I’m not crazy or conservative; I’m a Catholic. Just plain Catholic. If you’re going to reply, it would be best to do more research on modern Natural Family Planning methods, not antiquated ones, also.
Thank you for bringing the facts, Jessica! I’m not sure if people are just uneducated or if they simply enjoy the act of throwing pure crap out online where they won’t be called to task for their potentially harmful words. Honestly, for someone to equate Natural Family Planning with the pull-out and pray method is simply ignorant. Really, there’s no better word since those two “methods” are complete opposites.
As for Jennifer’s comments, hopefully she was just trying to have some fun by doing a little unaccountable Catholic bashing. It’s fun and easy to do. Unfortunately, she chose to do so regarding a topic that she clearly has NO understanding of, and once again a quick Wiki-search did not clarify things enough for her to make a sensible bash. Nope, NFP is not a calendar-based method. Sorry Jennifer, but your Catholic-bashing attempt=FAIL.
Oh yeah, and it’s NOT a #@&*ing CATHOLIC thing either! It’s a NATURAL thing that doesn’t rely upon harmful hormones, unreliable and non-intimate barriers or pull-out and pray methodology. It’s a unifying thing. It’s a healthy thing. It’s an empowering thing. And it’s a thing that enhances marriage in ways the ignorant cannot comprehend. Obviously.
And it’s not just a Catholic thing either. Honestly, I am going to start to develop a complex if you guys keep leaving us non-Catholics out of it
As an educated woman I will say that it is entirely empowering to practice modern NFP. There are even self-proclaimed feminists who practice it.
My comment is awaiting moderation. Let’s see if she posts it.
Nice, Dustin. How very optimistic…”hopefully she was just trying to have some fun…” Thanks for your affirming comments. NFP is not strictly a Catholic thing, and it’s beautiful for many reasons if people could open up their minds *just* a crack for long enough to find out more about it.
LOL. You might wish to note she did change the quote that you highlighted here. Apparently she has at least acknowledged that the Rhythm Method is not NFP … and that NFP is “more sophisticated.” So at least we’re getting somewhere
Yay, Think Again Thursdays!
Good eye, Kat! She may have straightened up the post, but the blogger’s got a long while before she straightens up her attitude. Did you see her comment replying the comment she never posted? I’ll post my comment and Sandy’s comment here, because I’m sure they’ll never get posted.
Just a note: even if the “failure rate” of Natural Family Planning (sympto-thermal or ovulation) were 5-9% (which is very well might be in actual use, especially for couples taking risks), Wikipedia has the failure rate for condoms ranging from 10-18% in actual use. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms. This leaves hormonal birth control and sterilization as the only forms of family planning with “acceptable” rates of pregnancy for those trying to avoid. Religious convictions aside, however, these methods can also fail in ways that are unacceptable. See In re: Yasmin and Yaz Product Liability Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117833, MDL No. 2100 (Nov. 16, 2009) (consolidating 86 class action lawsuits alleging an unacceptable risk of blood clots, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart attack from taking a popular form of hormonal birth control).
My comment:
Aah, Rachel, I don’t know where to begin. Well, on the positive side, you do have lots of energy and passion. That’s good. Indifference is definitely an enemy for all.
Aside from your ludicrous prejudicial judgment about who uses natural methods of family planning (or NFP), and your demonstrated unawareness as to the difference between the Rhythm Method (antiquated, 80-90% effective) and modern NFP (contemporary, science-based, and 98-99% effective), it’s evident that despite the fact that you seem to be an advocate of all things scientific and medically supported, you really don’t know much about the science of reproduction, or how NFP actually works.
You might want to start with:
http://www.njnfp.org
Or:
http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/full/22/2/147
My guess is that you’re so impassioned about your cause that you’ll just fire back something sarcastic, condescending or attacking [exactly what she does], but perhaps you would like to surprise me , check out the links and respond?
Reply: Good luck trusting your thermometer when you can’t even spell your 16% failure rate birth control method. At least you won’t be protected from STDs.
My comment: Awesome. Yes, I’m sure you’ve never misspelled anything in your life. Again, it’s not a 16% failure rate, but that’s your loss that you couldn’t check out the links or read up on something beyond your own opinion. Nope, no surprise with your comment, and no surprise that you’re not even open minded enough to publish the comments that you don’t agree with. Good luck getting through life (and beyond) with that attitude.
Reply: Why do you think I’d ever post a comment that promotes something I clearly don’t believe in? I am last person who would do any free promotions of your unrealistic methods. My attitude problem rules, look how badly it’s pissed you off?
My comment: Rachel, don’t flatter yourself. I’m not pissed; I’m at total peace, Rachel. I get irritated when people talk about things they don’t know about (cheers to you for changing your post). My words are not words of malice, but simply truth. I’m just confused because you apparently think of yourself as a class A liberal, when the very definition of liberal is generosity–generosity and open-mindedness to at least let others have a say. If your arguments are better, you should let them speak for themselves, rather than shutting them out.
No way! LOL The comment about the 5-9% failure is AWESOME. Some people are really anti-science. I hope whoever freaked about a 5-9% failure rate is also very, very anti-condom. And anti HRT/Pill. (which according to my med text from last year, has an 8% failure rate with typical use). It’s just too funny. I read the post to DH and he laughed until he had tears running down his face.
Ooh, it brings me such joy to that someone’s closed-mindedness as featured on my blog made you laugh so hard! (See my latest comment on “It’s Ovary Amazing…”—it’s all about the humor!) Pray for her, btw. She did not have a good reaction to receiving criticism on her blog. Yikes!