I would like to see where you are getting that data, as far as I know the Catholic church has never approved of any artificial birth control.
I
provided a link to the "data" I highlighted and renbutler had no problem fixing the bad url. Here it is again for you:
http://www.cyclebeads.com/uploads/cke_images/Typical-Use-Effectiveness-Comparison-Birth-Control-Methods---Contraceptive-Technology-20th-Edition.jpgWith regard to the
policy, I didn't say that the Pope approved of condoms "for birth control": I was being a bit liberal in my presentation of the Pope's dictate. What he did was okay use of condoms in the interest of protecting against AIDS transmission. This was back in November 2010. You're welcome to check historical news services the assure yourself that he did indeed do so.
Now why someone would need to protect themselves from AIDS transmission, when they're supposedly having sex only with the one and only person that they're ever supposed to have had sex with, etc. -- well don't ask me to rationalize the inconsistencies of Catholicism.
As to as the effectiveness of NFP - as far as I have ever been able to tell it is just as effective as other standard methods when used consistently and correctly
"I would like to see where you are getting that data." I provided links to the data I relied on. You're relying on your own gut feel, and you're including a non-controllable conditional. It's like saying that you will hit the bull's eye playing darts every single time as long as you aim and throw "consistently and correctly". People are human - your comments don't factor that in.
Your link doesn't work. ... EDIT: Is this the chart you wanted? http://www.cyclebeads.com/uploads/cke_images/Birth-Control-Effectiveness-Comparison-Adapted-from-Contraceptive-Technology-20th-Edition.jpg
Yup that's the one. Thanks for the fix.
It looks like the Sympto-thermal method is right on par with other methods.
Then you're not reading the chart correctly, or you forgot what I wrote, using that chart as evidence. This is what I wrote:
And assuming they don't choose to factor in the typical 4-14% higher probability of incurring the cost of an unplanned child, as compared to the most effective artificial method.If you would please respond to what I actually wrote (i.e., the
4-14% difference in probability between the
most effective natural methods and
most effective artificial methods, in the
typical case) instead of something easier to argue against, I would appreciate it.
Plus, as I pointed out, it has a slew of advantages that the others don't.
And there are advantages of the pill that you haven't mentioned either.
I still reject your numbers though.
Then you're denying reality. That's your choice.
Maybe you just have different opinions of widespread. 1 in 50 sounds pretty prevalent to me.
"Widespread" makes it sound like the prevalence of fraud is perhaps as common as the prevalence of conformance, when of course the reality is no where near that. 1 in 50 is not widespread. "Rare" is actually a better characterization.
At some point people just need to recognize the troll as what it is.
And at some point people just need to sit back and ask for clarifications instead of making ridiculously rude comments about other posters like you just did.