Guttmacher Study

dafalax · #1 Dec 20, '06, 6:52 am

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19....ap/index.html

The best part of this "objective article" is that premarital sex is painted as good because 95% of people are doing it. There is no study as to the mental or physical health effects to premarital sex. Guttmacher, i think, is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, so this study was designed to keep them in business. Sigh.

"Oh, Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

gam197 · #2 Dec 20, '06, 7:25 am

From wikipedia:

Alan Frank Guttmacher (1898-1974) was an American physician.

He served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, founded the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964, was a member of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization and had the Guttmacher Institute named after him.

This study has an agenda; it wants everyone to believe that 95 percent of Americans are having premarital sex, therefore it is "the norm".

If it is "the norm", there is no point in promoting abstinence education.

dafalax · #3 Dec 20, '06, 7:57 am

Well if no one has sex, you can't sell them contraceptives, condoms, abortions, and treatment for std's. If the number really is that high, it is a sad reflection of society, not a rallying cry to promote "safe" sex over abstinence. If 95% of people had cancer, would we put money into how to have safe cancer or how to prevent cancer? And does anyone stop to think that maybe if birth control hadn't been promoted in sex ed classes all these years, maybe the rate wouldn't be that high? And does the study cover how many girls who have sex in high school also end up with depression? And do you think it mentions that 75% of sexually active people in Canada have HPV, a virus that causes cervical cancer? The fact that the bandwagon approach is being used to sell sex, despite the fact that it is so bad for our young people, makes me want blood to shoot out of my eye sockets.

gam197 · #4 Dec 20, '06, 10:00 am

I just saw the whole article in my local conservative paper. I bet most newspapers will carry it and spread the propaganda

Not one will mention what the Guttmacher Institute policy is.

Kristopher · #5 Dec 21, '06, 5:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dafalax

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19....ap/index.html ... premarital sex is painted as good because 95% of people are doing it. ... Guttmacher, i think, is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, ... this study was designed to keep them in business. ...

I thought that the article by the Associated Press (AP) was balanced: giving both views toward abstinence and toward birth control.

" ... Finer is a research director at the Guttmacher Institute, a private New York-based think tank that studies sexual and reproductive issues and which disagrees with government-funded programs that rely primarily on abstinence-only teachings. ... Under the Bush administration, such programs have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. ... 'It would be more effective," Finer said, "to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will.'

Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, defended the abstinence-only approach for teenagers. ... he said. "The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.'

He insisted there was no federal mission against premarital sex among adults.

'Absolutely not,' Horn said. 'The Bush administration does not believe the government should be regulating or stigmatizing the behavior of adults.'

Horn said he found the high percentages of premarital sex cited in the study to be plausible, and expressed hope that society would not look askance at the small minority that chooses to remain abstinent before marriage.

However, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group which strongly supports abstinence-only education, said she was skeptical of the findings.

'Any time I see numbers that high, I'm a little suspicious,' she said. 'The numbers are too pat.'"

I know that Alan Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood. Undoubtedly, pre-marital sex does much to make Planned Parenthood profitable, unless they are not-for-profit; though, I know from those whom I have met that support Planned Parenthood--they have a genuine belief that what they are doing is good, and the most effective means available to stop abortions, to stop unintended pregnancies. Undoubtedly the genuine interest of some in Planned Parenthood is profit, but quite honestly most of them I think are sincerely interested in justice, not profitability.

In anycase, it would seem with many elements in our culture that the norm is pre-marital sex--this to me means nothing with respect to it being either acceptable, or unacceptable: it simply has the appearance of being a norm within our culture.

gam197 · #6 Dec 21, '06, 5:21 pm

Quote:

originally posted by Kristopher
Undoubtedly the genuine interest of some in Planned Parenthood is profit, but quite honestly most of them I think are sincerely interested in justice, not profitability.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US, hardly caring people.

It is bias study. They never mention once in the article that the Guttmacher Institute has a history. They don't want the public to know it's pro-abortion policies.

This article has been given alot of press. If an abstinent group has done such a study, they wouldn't get one word in the paper.

gam197 · #7 Dec 21, '06, 6:39 pm

How about a study on home schoolers and sexuality? Let's see how many home-schooled children are having sex at 13, 14, 15,16 and compare it to the public school.

They will never do such a study by an independent group.

BobCatholic · #8 Dec 21, '06, 7:16 pm

I read this and have two major objections.

1) One of the things I've noticed is that they did not go back very far.

For example, they'll quote people born in the 1940's. Well, they became 20 somethings in the 1960's and we know what went on there in the 1960's. They would have been the first generation of this "sexual revolution" and been making the bed squeak outside of marriage during this time.

I'd like to see statistics for those born in the 1930's. 1920's. 1910's. I bet the numbers were significantly lower.

2) They compared apples and oranges.

Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.

Comparing the rate "by age 30" and "by age 44" are apples and oranges.

MichaelTDoyle · #9 Dec 21, '06, 7:18 pm

I would be more interested in a scientific survey on what percentage of people believe pre-marital sex is a good thing for themselves.

dafalax · #10 Dec 22, '06, 5:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelTDoyle

I would be more interested in a scientific survey on what percentage of people believe pre-marital sex is a good thing for themselves.

Or their children. Would you do it again? I wouldn't.

MichaelTDoyle · #11 Dec 22, '06, 8:24 am

No, I would not. Chastity is a virtue for a very good reason.

Kristopher · #12 Dec 22, '06, 1:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gam197

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US, ... It is bias study. ... This article has been given alot of press. If an abstinent group has done such a study, they wouldn't get one word in the paper.

I am familiar with Planned Parenthood and its widespread reputation as an abortion provider. I think that the view of the woman provided did enough for any reader to reach their own conclusions about her position, and the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI) position. I think that it is great to see that you would like something about the clear affiliation of AGI with Planned Parenthood to be recognized as such, but I think that it was the point of the article to speak about the study, not the institute, but it would be nice to see an additional article as follow-up to this one about the study, an expose that would state AGI is the namesake of a former president of Planned Parenthood, additionally, he openly advocated abortions against human life: himself once having stated that you have to be a fool to think that anything else other than human life has occurred at the point of conception.

I do find it easy that we should all think that any article about a study concerning abstinence would be denied the same press coverage; though, I have to doubt this easy perspective, because I have seen national media coverage about abstinence programs in states such as MN that have been intensely successful, and the lack of such programs in states such as NJ, with a striking contrast between an ethnically white population, and an ethnically black population.

The article did give the last word to those who support abstinence; the significance of abstinence should not be lessened by any size of a population practicing it; additionally, the statistic of ninety-five percent is questionable according to another apparently authoritative abstinence supporter.

gam197 · #13 Dec 22, '06, 6:10 pm

Quote:

originally posted by Kristopher
I think that the view of the woman provided did enough for any reader to reach their own conclusions about her position, and the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI)

I don’t believe most people know who Guttmacher was or what his Institute stands for. They don’t connect the dots. When an article such as this is given the full press, the public needs to know what group did the study. Its makes a major difference.

I have seen very little press on abstinence education and it is usually negative.
Abstinent education, for the most part, doesn’t exist. Most federal money is given to the state and they turn it over to the Department of Health which is often pro-abortion in policy. The Dept. of Health gets the final say on how the money is spent.

A person I know has worked on this for years and he connects the dots when it comes to abstinence funding and although he attends many meetings, he has no real say. An employee can work for a candidate, then for Planned Parenthood, then for the Department of Health.

If this culture is really interested in improving things, why not a study on home schooled teens and sex? Why not a poll on those who had premarital sex and how it affected them?

Kristopher · #14 Dec 24, '06, 2:25 pm

I think that your point is to have a non-biased study about sexual behaviors: different stratums of society must be inclusive of those attending private schools, public schools, in addition to those in attendance, and frequently absent, and those home-schooled of course, how would anyone be able to trust the results from students home-schooled would be an entirely different matter: imagine a phone-call from survey volunteers talking with the wives of husbands, at an hour say, dinnertime, being asked this question--have you had an affair within the past month, two months, three months? The responses would differ quite a bit without the company of the husband, of the wife in the home at the hour of the phone call in some homes, no doubt. Same with kids, and it can be more difficult to detect a lie than people commonly think; though, it can be very easy as well.

I still think that the article is objective, and the information provided regarding AGI was sufficient for the topic dealt with in the article; it would in my opinion require another article that would deal more appropriately with AGI and studies conducted by AGI and their bias present in conclusions, to include flawed methods, and the like concerning their studies. Someone already more than likely established a conflict between numbers yielded from any number of statistical methods between the Center for Disease and Control (CDC) and AGI.

Kristopher · #15 Dec 24, '06, 3:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gam197

... A person I know has worked on this for years and he connects the dots when it comes to abstinence funding and although he attends many meetings, he has no real say. An employee can work for a candidate, then for Planned Parenthood, then for the Department of Health. ...

You might refer your friend to this URL that I found: I doubt that it is any more credible than something at AGI in fact, it might seem to confirm their work. I have not read all 118 pages having just found it myself, but it should be of interest to us in the Pro-Life movement. Probably it already has been read, analyzed, and found conclusive categorically for what it does cover.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/library/sexual.pdf