Talk:Guttmacher Institute

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Southesm. Peer reviewers: Alaina.parrish, Nurreea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

POV Issue
"Though it advocates for the wide availability of both, and is associated with the pro-Choice movement, its statistical research is widely respected, and considered authoritative." This reaks of POV. I changed it to very obviously state that it is a POV statement and nothing substantiated. {Unsigned: from 71.84.224.62}
 * I'm going to remove the whole statement, lest a flameware erupt before sourcing begins. This statement does need sourcing, in either form. --NightMonkey 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

major POV
This article sounds like a Guttmacher press release.

--

Yes it does. I realize this article is just a stub, but it nevertheless borders on propaganda.DesScorp 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Web sites?
What happened to their web sites? I can not get to any of them. I get the standard 'page can not be displayed' for all of them. 147.240.236.8 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That Guttmacher promotes "Reporductive Health" is POV
The idea that they promote Reproductive Health" comes from their own mission statement. However, they advocate legal abortion on demand and birth control, and to many, many people, those things are deeply opposed to "reproductive health." Quoting their own literature is not unlike quoting KKK literature saying that they pomote a "harmony between races".LCP 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused here. Can you point to sources that define reproductive health in another manner? Can you cite sources that believe the goals of the GI are contrary to "reproductive health"? I'm all fine for addressing POV and making sure to include notable dissent (perhaps not in the first sentence though), however, I do not believe we need to add unsourced criticism and original research. I think it's important to include the GI's on self-definition of itself, in addition to how others feel about the institute. What may be a good idea is to see if there is a notable, reliable third party that describes the GI, and then we could cite that instead.-Andrew c [talk] 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. Will do within a few days. Regarding adding verbiage from their own literature, I think you are right, just as we would want to add literature to the page on the KKK talking about how they view themselves.LCP 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It didn’t take me a few days after all. Here’s the problem. The WHO includes abortion and contraception in the idea of “reproductive health”, yet there are some of considerable moral, ethical, and political authority who reject the inclusion of abortion and contraception in the notion of reproductive health. Including abortion and contraception in "reproductive health" is problematic as in purely scientific terms, "reproductive health” would literally mean ensuring that people get the medical support they need to be able to have healthy reproductive systems. Birth control and abortion have nothing to do with that. All other things being equal, women on birth control or who have had an abortion do not have reproductive systems that are more healthy than those of women who are not and have not. So, including abortion and contraception as part of the idea of "reproductive health"--as do the WHO and Guttmacher--is not at all necessary or self evident. It is a moral and ethical call. And as repeatedly evidence in recent history, science has no competence in moral and ethical matters. This link speaks only to the problem of including abortion in the definition: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06121406.html.


 * Contraception is related to reproductive health in the sense of a healthy reproductive system. Pregnancy is risky - with significantly higher morbidity and mortality than non-pregnancy. So for starters, those women who die in child birth would be healthier (reproductively and otherwise) if they had used contraception. Some forms of contraception (e.g., condoms, abstinence) decrease the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; some of said diseases decrease reproductive health. One could also consider results of procedures like Cesarian delivery, etc. on reproductive system. Zodon (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT Small changes about grammar and spelling mistakes. Citations are on point.

Nurreea (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias section
I find it odd that the bias section is just about how they, allegedly, are unbiased.45.43.101.69 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)