Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks reproductive rights

[Sure]

I don't think that was meant as "We need to reproduce" but rather "If you have a child, you need to be there, and not abandon them"

Women are allowed to 'abandon' them, or as I'd prefer to call it, put them up for adoption. Indeed, there are programs in most states which allow women to give up recently born babies. Further, they can abort the fetus, which is another form of getting rid of what's happened.

To force men to support the child even though he had no hand in deciding whether it was kept or not, particularly while women do have the choice whether to keep it or not, is not only sexist but a violation of men's reproductive rights.

[Kuroneko]

To be frank, men are already in it for child support and so on and have no option to opt out like women do, except in a few states. Men's Rights in this issue is effectively being treated as a devolved power, except where there are pushes to eliminate it by feminists (and by 'feminists' I mean 'NOW'). This makes me instantly suspicious of any equivalence argument: Yes, men are just as responsible as women in a biological sense, but they are not given an equal opportunity to opt out of that responsibility. So why should they be treated as if they are just as responsible for a decision where they have less say and less rights than a woman?

I can't speak for other women, but if I personally made the decision to have a child, regardless of what that child's father wanted, I wouldn't expect him to pay anything.  However, if that father agreed to have the kids, and then refused to assist, I'd feel differently.

Regardless, I'm not sure how you got of the opinion women's diseases aren't dealt with as much as men's: women have gynecologists, the male equivalent (andrologist) is nowhere near as widespread. Breast cancer (a disease which affects women more than a hundred times than men) is better funded than prostate cancer despite the fact they kill about the same amount each year and prostate cancer has fewer survivors. And even within breast cancer funding very little of it goes to breast cancer in men. Suicide is by and by large a male problem and yet it is underfunded (and, if I recall, it's getting cut as well). Women also have better access to healthcare: the last study I saw had 74% of men having some kind of insurance, with 86% of women having some kind of insurance.

Oh, and there's the fact women outlive men by a significant margin. I would find it awfully curious if a group which had less attention paid to its health issues outlived one that didn't.

I'm sorry, but there are many articles and studies to show that women's health issues are often pushed aside, by themselves, by their doctors, and by the health community at large.  Without drowning this thread with links, here's just one:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/4/4686.html

Medscape dot org cites studies that show that since 1984, 20% - 40% more women die of heart diease than men, mostly because they are under diagnosed and undertreated and yet only in the past two years has this issue been getting any attention.  That is not to say that there aren't problems with men's medicine as well.  There certainly are.  One of my colleagues was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and the doctor's recommendations are like breast cancer surgery in the 50's - radical and invasive surgery.  Why take just the breast when you can take nearly the entire arm?  There's a really good book on the subject actually, Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers. 

You are entitled to your own opinions. You, however, must either defend your opinion on rational or empirical grounds or admit that the opinion is entirely constructed of whole cloth and sustained by blind faith, I'm afraid. [/mini-rant 2]

The invention of viagra and all its clones alone shows that men's sex issues are taken more seriously than women's .  Several pills for men for years, and yet, only one that addresses the decrease of a woman's sex drive.  Sadly, sexism occurs in doctor's offices just as much as anywhere else.  Against both genders.

Back on topic: Contraception is definitely not a woman's rights issue. It is a reproductive rights issue, but men have reproductive rights too, even if they're ignored more often. And this is a blow to the reproductive rights of both genders.

Agreed.  I have changed the title of the thread to reflect this.

Anyhow, my intent with this thread, to make people aware of Walker's other attacks on rights, has been met.  So, I'll leave it to the rest of you if you wish to continue to discuss it. 

[Sure]

I can't speak for other women, but if I personally made the decision to have a child, regardless of what that child's father wanted, I wouldn't expect him to pay anything.  However, if that father agreed to have the kids, and then refused to assist, I'd feel differently.

I'm certainly not suggesting men have the right to opt out whenever they want. Nor should a woman be allowed to abandon, say, a ten year old. But at the beginning they should be allowed to opt out in exchange for not having any special relationship to the child (no rights in regard to it, etc).

And while your personal decision is, in my mind, the right one, personal decisions should not be what supports men's rights any more than they should be what supports women's rights. In other words, the fact that I, personally, have not chosen not to rape anyone does not change the necessity for rape laws (to use an extreme example, and a somewhat poor one since men can be raped too).

I'm sorry, but there are a gajillion articles and studies to show that women's health issues are often pushed aside, by themselves, by their doctors, and by the health community at large.  Without drowing this thread with links, here's just one:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/4/4686.html

Medscape dot org cites studies that show that since 1984, 20% - 40% more women die of heart diease than men, mostly because they are under diagnosed and undertreated and yet only in the past two years has this issue been getting any attention.  That is not to say that there aren't problems with men's medicine as well.  There certainly are.  One of my colleagues was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and the doctor's recommendations are like breast cancer surgery in the 50's - radical and invasive surgery.  Why take just the breast when you can take nearly the entire arm?  There's a really good book on the subject actually, Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers.

I am not saying women's health is not neglected, but I am saying men's health is neglected more. Specifically in heart problems, I have no idea. However, men die in greater numbers and from a greater number of preventable causes each year than women. So... yeah.

The invention of viagra and all its clones alone shows that men's sex issues are taken more seriously than women's .  Several pills for men for years, and yet, only one that addresses the decrease of a woman's sex drive.  Sadly, sexism occurs in doctor's offices just as much as anywhere else.  Against both genders.

Men's sexual issues are taken more seriously than women's? You mean dysfunction or in general? Male dysfunction (lack of sex drive, impotence, unable to get an erection) is certainly taken more seriously than women's dysfunction, but in general women get much more attention paid to reproductive health, etc. I do agree its sexism and you are right it is against both genders. It just fits with expectations: if a man isn't up for it, he has an issue that needs to be fixed. If a woman isn't up for it, well, she's a woman. Both of these attitudes are sexist.

Edit: Please don't edit into your post that you wish to end the discussion after I've already replied. It's poor etiquette and changes the tenor of my own post. -Sure

[Trieste]

I can't even believe this is a debate. We have a global overpopulation problem, for fuck's sake, and it's only getting worse through ignorance. Between the Pope's "condoms are a sin" lectures and conservative "well, who says women should have uterine control anyway?" bullshit, we'll be buried in welfare babies that they can ship off to pointless wars in no time.

*slowclap*

[itsbeenfun2000]

more poor children, more people to support afterwards through welfare. The conservatives want it both ways.

[Kuroneko]

Edit: Please don't edit into your post that you wish to end the discussion after I've already replied. It's poor etiquette and changes the tenor of my own post. -Sure

I'm sorry Sure, but I'm free to bow out of a conversation anytime I choose, regardless of whether or not you feel it's poor eitiquette.  Plus, I was editing my post for spelling and coding errors when yours was posted less than one minute later.  I hadn't even read it.  My desire to not continue had nothing to do with your post.  Your post, and its tenor, stands on its own without help from me or anyone else.  It's clear that your opinion and mine differ, and that's perfectly all right.  I have no problem with that. There just isn't any point in continuing to go back and forth, or potentially engendering bad feelings, at least for me.  Feel free to think of me what you will.

Again, my apologies, but I have had a recent death in my family, and I'm just not up for an argument or the stress it will cause on top of everything else.  As I've said three times now: my goal with this thread has been met.   I'm done. 

[RubySlippers]

What is the issue here, contraception is readily available in every pharmacy just go in and get condoms or one of several other options, need prescription birth control these places should still be open just find money to replace the states lost revenue and come on if you can't afford to get protection you should not be having sex if there is a risk of pregnancy.

[Callie Del Noire]

What is the issue here, contraception is readily available in every pharmacy just go in and get condoms or one of several other options, need prescription birth control these places should still be open just find money to replace the states lost revenue and come on if you can't afford to get protection you should not be having sex if there is a risk of pregnancy.

And with those planned parenthood facilities closed where will the underprivileged be able to get their prescriptions for it?

[RubySlippers]

No prescriptions are needed for several forms of contraception, condoms for one or female condoms or contraceptive foam or contraceptive sponge or combine these which is suggested and there you go.

If you need a prescription and can't afford the doctor or nurse practitioner clinic then the birth control might be an issue to pay for, again can't afford to play don't play.

The government cannot coddle everyone where it decides to not spend money it must be made up for by donations or other funding generated outside the government.

[Oniya]

Planned Parenthood is well known for providing condoms at no or low cost.

[Ramster]

Appropriate to this discussion:

Oklahoma Doctors Can Now Legally Pretend To Give Abortions

[Callie Del Noire]

Uh..why does something from the spoof network Onion News come to be appropiate (asides from encouraging idiots in legislatures to think this might be okay0

[Ramster]

Perhaps I should have said "pertinent". A reductio ad absurdum of the many idiotic laws restricting reproductive rights that have been mentioned.

[RubySlippers]

And with those planned parenthood facilities closed where will the underprivileged be able to get their prescriptions for it?

Here is my idea find other sources of funding counties and cities/townships have local budgets and taxes they can also give these clinics money, it just has to be raised. And there is donations you know those funds people give a group that is the best place to get the money.

[Valerian]

For one thing, under Walker's new plan, local governments will be prohibited from doing things like raising property taxes to cover any budget shortfalls that might happen.  It'll be all they can do to keep schools running, probably.  Things like Planned Parenthood will most likely have funding yanked first, to help keep the schools afloat.