The ones falsely fanatic about saving embryos, opposed to stem cell research, and that frown on a woman's right to choose- the "Republicans" (in quotes because it is by name only) can't rethink the rhythm-method.

They are addicted to it. Every 2, 4, and 6 years, during the election cycles, they go into their rhythm of bringing up embryos, abortion, gays, and the flag. Without that rhythm method, they fear giving life to an alternate voice in the halls of Congress and the Oval Office.

*** War and "Terrorism" are their two "morning after" pills if the rhythm method fails.

First of all, the Catholic Church recommends NFP, not 'the rythym method'. This is a major error on the part of the economist that wrote this piece. NFP methods are rather different that the rythym method and the majority of the issues he raises are moot.

Second, he is forced to clearly admit that the core contention of his argument, that pregnancies are more viable in begun in the midst of the fertile period, is "not supported by empirical evidence" - in other words, its just not true.

Third, even if we accept all of his rather silly assumptions he is disguising several more, such as - all women using NFP use it solely and always to avoid pregnancy.

Last, this article in a ethics magazine seems to fail to differentiate the moral differences between an unavoidable natural consequence and the results of dilerberate action.

Of course it's not true, but why should that stop him from taking an opportunity to pile on the Catholics. LOL.

The rhythm method is a form of NFP. To my knowledge, a lot of American Catholics who choose to abide by the church's teaching use STM, and I know there are other methods. However, the rhythm method is still being used by some people. Unfortunately, better forms of NFP are not as popular in other parts of the world, presumably because of a lack of training and education.