> So anyone talking of natural birth control is eyed with sucpicion. Right, so the author is suggesting something is inaccurate about the word "natural" (in t

> So anyone talking of natural birth control is eyed with sucpicion. Right, so the author is suggesting something is inaccurate about the word "natural" (in the specific sense that if you quote the word in this context, it means you are disavowing its correctness and attributing it to someone else) -- even though it's not -- simply because the author disagrees with the other persons conclusions, politics, or methods. But the author does this in a way that isn't technically disputing the word usage, so that if they are challenged they can always back track. (See "motte and bailey": slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ ) This is a textbook example of a dark-side persuasion techniques rather than honestly engaging with arguments.