Women are "Hosts" lets slip OK Rep

[Paratus]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...tion_fetal_host_bill_is_unconstitutional.html

To recap: Oklahoma Republican Rep. Justin Humphrey sponsored a billrequiring women to get “the written informed consent of the father of the fetus” before terminating her pregnancy. Moreover, a woman seeking an abortion would “be required to provide, in writing, the identity of the father of the fetus” to the doctors performing the procedure. In an interview with the Intercept, Humphrey explained the purpose of his bill:

I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions. I understand that they feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate—what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant. So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.

Host: An animal or plant that nourishes and supports a parasite; the host does not benefit and is often harmed by the association

Wow dude you aren't supposed to say it out loud! You're supposed to say it's about unborn children not it's about forcing women to be unwilling incubators for parasites.


Luckily this highly unconstitutional bill has been tabled. But damn does this guy suck.

 

[dank69]

This was the important deciding factor for evangelicals to vote for Trump. It is better to sell the whole country to Russia than to vote for a politician that wants to keep abortion legal. God can't step in to save us all until we make abortion illegal, not to mention punishing all the gays.

 

[NostaSeronx]

You're a memebiote, women! What your body does overrides what you think. Abortion? DENIED. The body is the host to YOU, do you think it wants to host you? Hell to the naw.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

His position hinges on the fundamental basis of all anti-choice advocacy: women freely having sex is WRONG, and we can't have that.

The problem for him is that there is no rational basis to support the idea that it's "irresponsible" to have unprotected sex. What duty does a woman owe to refrain from unprotected sex, and to whom does she owe it?

I leave that for any of Christian Taliban here to defend.

 

[pcgeek11]

I see the point that you are making, but lets say for instance that you are involved with a woman and you both make a choice to have a child. Later she decides to abort that child and you think you shouldn't have even a small say so about it? None.

Reverse that and say she becomes pregnant and you as the father want no part of it even though you will be required to support this child until it is 18 years old. You still get no say so in what she decides to do even though it will also effect you the rest of your life.

Seems a little biased in my opinion.

 

[pcgeek11]

His position hinges on the fundamental basis of all anti-choice advocacy: women freely having sex is WRONG, and we can't have that.

The problem for him is that there is no rational basis to support the idea that it's "irresponsible" to have unprotected sex. What duty does a woman owe to refrain from unprotected sex, and to whom does she owe it?

I leave that for any of Christian Taliban here to defend.

I think she owes it to herself if she is smart.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think she owes it to herself if she is smart.

A swing and a miss! Please don't project your mother's regrets onto other women.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I see the point that you are making, but lets say for instance that you are involved with a woman and you both make a choice to have a child. Later she decides to abort that child and you think you shouldn't have even a small say so about it? None.

While that sucks, it's still her body. Terminating pregnancy is not something people take lightly.

Reverse that and say she becomes pregnant and you as the father want no part of it even though you will be required to support this child until it is 18 years old. You still get no say so in what she decides to do even though it will also effect you the rest of your life.

Seems a little biased in my opinion.

Uh yea, if you're man enough to procreate, you've assumed adulthood and will be require to at least financially raise your offspring. It's the republican thing to do.

 

[brycejones]

Reverse that and say she becomes pregnant and you as the father want no part of it even though you will be required to support this child until it is 18 years old. You still get no say so in what she decides to do even though it will also effect you the rest of your life..

Don't play if you aren't prepared to pay.

 

[BoomerD]

While that sucks, it's still her body. Terminating pregnancy is not something MOST people take lightly.

ftfy.

Uh yea, if you're man enough to procreate, you've assumed adulthood and will be require to at least financially raise your offspring. It's the republican thing to do.

But now you're helping the argument that if a man has no say in whether the woman gets pregnant (beyond the responsible choice of using a condom) whether she carries the fetus to term and gives birth or not, and whether she keeps said child or gives it up for adoption. IF you don't want to be financially responsible for the child support should she decide to keep it...wear a condom every time.

I'm anti-abortion...so much so that I can't imagine ANY scenario in which I will ever get one...but I'm NOT so self-centered that I think I should have a say in what a woman does with the "parasite" growing inside her. Yes, if it's MY wife, I'd like to have the right to try to help her decide...but NOT the right to TELL her what to do. Men don't OWN women...and have no more right to tell them they can't get an abortion than they do to tell her what kind of hair style to wear.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm with ya there BoomerD. The problem is that certain types in this country want to create laws that allow men to procreate all they want, and then the right to tell the women what they're going to do about it.

 

[Grooveriding]

Just another radical Christian trying to violate someone's freedom with theocracy.

 

[Paratus]

I see the point that you are making, but lets say for instance that you are involved with a woman and you both make a choice to have a child. Later she decides to abort that child and you think you shouldn't have even a small say so about it? None.

Reverse that and say she becomes pregnant and you as the father want no part of it even though you will be required to support this child until it is 18 years old. You still get no say so in what she decides to do even though it will also effect you the rest of your life.

Seems a little biased in my opinion.

If you don't have a say I don't see why the state should step in and enforce the relationship you want. It's your own damn fault for procreating with a woman who doesn't allow you to have a say.

Besides you support "Right to Work", why should she be forced to labor for you?

As for choosing to have the child, you may notice that your financial duty is to the child not the woman. If you don't want to pay child support feel free to be a father.

Finally let's take the opposite case. You and her agree to not have children but you change your mind. If the state can remove her bodily autonomy to force her to be an incubator to prevent her from changing her mind then there's no reason they can't remove yours and forcibly sterilize you if you change your mind.

 

[fskimospy]

I see the point that you are making, but lets say for instance that you are involved with a woman and you both make a choice to have a child. Later she decides to abort that child and you think you shouldn't have even a small say so about it? None.

Reverse that and say she becomes pregnant and you as the father want no part of it even though you will be required to support this child until it is 18 years old. You still get no say so in what she decides to do even though it will also effect you the rest of your life.

Seems a little biased in my opinion.

Your duty is to the child, if it exists, not the woman. I agree that the woman has much more control over whether that child exists or not, but there's no real way around it as any other way of doing it is way worse than what we have now.

As things are now, both parents control their own bodies and both have an obligation to any offspring they create. If you change that it means either men get to force medical procedures on unwilling women, which is evil, or men get to summarily choose not to support their offspring, which is irresponsible.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Uh yea, if you're man enough to procreate, you've assumed adulthood and will be require to at least financially raise your offspring. It's the republican thing to do.

That's removing agency from the woman though.

Think of the following scenarios:
Man wants baby, woman doesn't - its her body she can do with it what she likes. In other words, the man had no input into what happened, was not responsible for the creation of the life, and has no say in it
Man does not want baby, woman does - too bad, should have worn a condom. In other words, the baby would not have happened without the man, he is partially responsible for the creation of the life, and has no say in the decision but is expected to take responsibility for the offspring.

These are mutually contradictory positions. Either the man is responsible or he isn't. If he is responsible for the creation of the life, then he ought to have a say in whether it is aborted. If he is not responsible, then he should not be forced to provide for it.

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree the father should be consented. I feel men need some rights on this matter. What if the father would pay for all medical and claim the child as its own freeing you from the burden of parenting. Things like that should be on the table i think. I'm sure their are many fathers would might have done this if they had any rights. I mean i think ultimately its the womens choice, but i do think men need a bit more representing and options about abortion.

 

[Majes]

There are other definitions for the word "host".

 

[fskimospy]

That's removing agency from the woman though.

Think of the following scenarios:
Man wants baby, woman doesn't - its her body she can do with it what she likes. In other words, the man had no input into what happened, was not responsible for the creation of the life, and has no say in it
Man does not want baby, woman does - too bad, should have worn a condom. In other words, the baby would not have happened without the man, he is partially responsible for the creation of the life, and has no say in the decision but is expected to take responsibility for the offspring.

These are mutually contradictory positions. Either the man is responsible or he isn't. If he is responsible for the creation of the life, then he ought to have a say in whether it is aborted. If he is not responsible, then he should not be forced to provide for it.

This is bad reasoning.

That specific child would not and could not exist without his input, therefore he shares a joint responsibility for its creation. The fact that the woman could elect to have a medical procedure that would prevent that child from being born does exactly zero to mitigate this responsibility. Your responsibility for your actions does not depend on what other people do.

The idea that inseminating a woman would give a man license to force her to have elective medical procedures performed on herself with the threat of financial ruin is seriously twisted.

 

[Paratus]

There are other definitions for the word "host".

Spoiler

Sorry pregnancy is neither a gameshow nor a party.

 

[Ancalagon44]

This is bad reasoning.

That specific child would not and could not exist without his input, therefore he shares a joint responsibility for its creation. The fact that the woman could elect to have a medical procedure that would prevent that child from being born does exactly zero to mitigate this responsibility. Your responsibility for your actions does not depend on what other people do.

The idea that inseminating a woman would give a man license to force her to have elective medical procedures performed on herself with the threat of financial ruin is seriously twisted.

I'm not saying she should be forced to have a medical procedure against her will.

I'm saying, she has the ability to have an abortion. She is the only one who can make the decision. Unfortunately, that is the way biology works. If she knows that the father does not want the child, she can abort it. Why raise a child that one of the parents does not want? If she knows that the father does not want the child and does not abort, she is going into parenthood knowing that the father does not want the child. Even if the father does not provide financially, he can never be forced to provide for the child emotionally.

So the point is:
Woman decides she does not want responsibility for the child - has an abortion. Only she can decide this.
Man decides he does not want responsibility for the child. Not allowed to make this decision - only the woman has the luxury.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not saying she should be forced to have a medical procedure against her will.

I'm saying, she has the ability to have an abortion. She is the only one who can make the decision. Unfortunately, that is the way biology works. If she knows that the father does not want the child, she can abort it. Why raise a child that one of the parents does not want? If she knows that the father does not want the child and does not abort, she is going into parenthood knowing that the father does not want the child. Even if the father does not provide financially, he can never be forced to provide for the child emotionally.

So the point is:
Woman decides she does not want responsibility for the child - has an abortion. Only she can decide this.
Man decides he does not want responsibility for the child. Not allowed to make this decision - only the woman has the luxury.

That's true, and it's a function of biology that we can't get around. The way our system handles it now is the best way available. Is there a child? If so, both parents are responsible. If there isn't, no one is responsible.

 

[Ancalagon44]

That's true, and it's a function of biology that we can't get around. The way our system handles it now is the best way available. Is there a child? If so, both parents are responsible. If there isn't, no one is responsible.

Best for who? The mother, the child, or the father?

The mother - has to constantly go to court to fight for maintenance
The child - unwanted by one parent, possibly resented by the other
The father - made a mistake, not allowed to undo it because he was born male

Does that make sense?

"Oh that's the way it's always been, we shouldn't change it."

 

[ch33zw1z]

That's removing agency from the woman though.

Think of the following scenarios:
Man wants baby, woman doesn't - its her body she can do with it what she likes. In other words, the man had no input into what happened, was not responsible for the creation of the life, and has no say in it
Man does not want baby, woman does - too bad, should have worn a condom. In other words, the baby would not have happened without the man, he is partially responsible for the creation of the life, and has no say in the decision but is expected to take responsibility for the offspring.

These are mutually contradictory positions. Either the man is responsible or he isn't. If he is responsible for the creation of the life, then he ought to have a say in whether it is aborted. If he is not responsible, then he should not be forced to provide for it.

It's the woman's right to choose. If the man wants a baby that badly, adopt one.

Stop thinking with your dick.

 

[interchange]

I've heard more than one woman call a fetus a parasite. When it's an intended pregnancy, though, it's a baby not a fetus.

Words have amazing power, don't they?

Except they might lead us to think that there is a logically consistent reductionist moral stance on abortion. There isn't. It's a complicated interplay between biology and societal norms and the law which will never result in a solitary unobjectionable viewpoint.

 

[Majes]

Spoiler

Sorry pregnancy is neither a gameshow nor a party.

You don't have to apologize. Your statement is correct. But you're still limiting the definition pretty severely. Merriam-Webster is your friend.