I stumbled on those remarks when I was watching the trailer for the movie "My So-Called Selfish Life."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6546882/

Which led me to this, from the National Review, in March 2019:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mike-lee-children-climate-change-washington-post-reaction/

In it, columnist Robert Verbruggen wrote, regarding the backlash against Lee by the Washington Post:

"Slight problem: That (research) article relied on a single study for its estimate of the impact of a new child on climate change — and said study did not even attempt to take into account the effect Lee was talking about, which is that more people means more technological advancement and thus new ways to reduce emissions. The study just estimated how much carbon a child (and in turn the child’s own children and so on) will emit over the course of his life, based on various assumptions about how overall per capita emissions will change, without considering that children could themselves alter the trajectory of those emissions."

Yes, well, from what I've always heard, the trouble with having more babies than one can afford - or that one WANTS - is that those kids tend either to grow up in poverty or be neglected or both, which typically does NOT mean they will grow up to make big changes in favor of the common good. As Verbruggen himself said:

"In theory, any new baby might grow up to be the person who solves this whole thing, but most people just go through life chowing down on red meat and flying on airplanes."

(And, as he could have added, statistically speaking, one's kid is more likely to become a petty criminal than someone who cures cancer. So the least one can do is make sure a child is wanted by both parents.)

> (And, as he could have added, statistically speaking, one's kid is more likely to become a petty criminal than someone who cures cancer. So the least one can do is make sure a child is wanted by both parents.)

Two other things - I think these are especially important for parents of teen boys to take to heart.

Whatever they're teaching in comprehensive sex ed these days, two of the most important lessons would have to be:

1. That a couple has to use TWO artificial methods, every time. This is because even the Pill, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, has a Real Life Failure rate of...6% or more. (Of course, that includes the human error factor.) That's a 1 in 16 chance of failure.

2. Male or female, people aren't robots, and they change their minds from what they told you originally. So if YOU'RE the one who doesn't want to raise/support a child for 18 or more years, it's YOUR job to make sure that two methods ARE being used, every time. I.e., once conception occurs, all bets are off as to how your partner is going to react - or what that person will demand from you.

And I just found this, on Reddit.

I'm pretty sure the author is telling the truth - if commercial ads for so-called Natural Family Planning didn't exist, people would say so pretty quickly, after all.

I just wish it said whether the ads are online or on TV - I suspect the former.

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/12el9wh/leave_me_alone_natural_cycles/

Greektwinmommy
8 hr. ago

"Leave me alone, Natural Cycles!!!

"Is anyone else getting bombarded with natural cycles ads? I’ve been on the pill for about 15 years now and I haven’t had any problems with it. I know some people can’t take hormonal bc, but I’ve been fortunate that it works for me. A lot of my friends that I’ve made in the past year don’t use any birth control, which again - totally fine. Their choice. BUT they don’t want children. They track their cycles and use the pullout method. Seems risky to me, but again, their choice. Who am I to judge. I’ve had 2 friends ask me now if I would ever stop taking the pill and do a detox and I said no, I really don’t want a baby and the pill has been 100% successful for me. Now, I’m getting TONS of ads about natural cycles, trying to convince me that my birth control is bad for me and I can just track my cycles and I can’t get pregnant 24/7, I just need to have sex and the right times. WHAT!"

There are 107 comments. A few:

messy tuxedo cat:
"I had terrible side effects with birth control, and absolutely think a discussion of the burden that method of contraception places on women should be supported and validated. It's pretty shitty that birth control pills that impact a woman all day every day are the default option for most hetero relationships, when condoms have a similar effectiveness. The prioritization of a man feeling a bit more during sex over a women being able to function normally in every other aspect of life deserves scrutiny.

"That said, it seems real dang coincidental that the anti BC marketing is happening right as several states are ramping up to ban it. The discussion isn't being framed as a call for men to pull their weight in family planning, it's an attack on women's rights to protect themselves and control their own bodies. I think it's naive to assume this issue is unconnected to the general attack on reproductive rights in recent years."

MarlandoCalrissian
"I came here to ask if anyone thought it was sus that 'natural' methods are suddenly being ad promoted when so many people are going for long-term bc or sterilization in the wake of the bans..."

84unicorn
"I feel like this coincides with other anti science stuff. As OP said, there are definitely some people who can't use BC. I had my IUD removed last year in case it was causing some health symptoms. It wasn't and it turns out it was actually helping so I am getting another.
"Natural cycle tracking is so risky. I'd be really interested to see where the money for these ads is coming from."

IIRC, the rhythm method works 80% of the time and withdrawal works 75% of the time. It's likely that many teens have combined them, so that SHOULD work 95% of the time.

But that's still a 1 in 20 chance of failure. Not good. Besides, teens aren't known for behaving responsibly.

Not to mention that the rhythm method (if one wants peace of mind without buying lots of pregnancy tests) essentially means having to abstain for all but the week just before her period is due. That means abstaining for at least three weeks per month, typically.