Are Pregnant Women "Hosts?"

Post Reply New Topic

That's ridiculous...and quite paternalistic in a possibly fascistic sense.

Why should a GROWN WOMAN seek the permission of her FATHER? What kind of crap is this?

Reminds me of some Victorian hell.

Nobody would describe a mother with a baby growing inside as a "host." That's a gross simplification, at the very least.

One definition of a "host" is a living being that unwillingly plays "host" to parasitic living beings.

A human being, for example, can be a host to parasitic worms.

Looks like Oklahoma is just searching for loopholes.

The good thing about living in a democracy is that we have a lot of options if we don't like someone in office. We can campaign for the other guy, we can campaign ourselves, we can simply vote for the other guy, we can fill the current guy's phone with messages saying that we the voters are upset, we can write opinions and news pieces that spread the word about how very wrong he is, etc.

And also if we know them locally or personally, we could call their mother. And, in this sort of case, any other female relatives we know of.

Customarily, the human body is only referred to as "a host" in relation to invasive parasites such as tapeworms. To use this in relation to pregnancy is unspeakably vile, and only a fanatic would say something so extreme and dehumanising - either not knowing it was unacceptable, or not caring that it was, or both. Shame.

They are not stating they want to contact the woman's father, it would be the father of the fetus. The wording is rather unclear so I can understand the confusion.

I do agree host is a poor choice of words but in this case it is to illuminate that the woman is "hosting" a product of two people and that the father should also have a choice in the abortion not just the mother. I don't agree with the idea personally but it is nice that men are being thought of in the decision so that it may nudge our culture towards men being more responsible with childbirth, especially if accidental.

Clicking the link in the OP took me straight to real estate spam (twice) so it has been deleted.

I've seen similar before in person - some guy was having an argument with my friend cause he kept calling women baby machines and saying that's all we're good for which is completely wrong/backwards. Quickly changed his tune when a lesbian friend of mine completely butted in, lost her s**t and threatened to beat ten tons of s**t out of him. xD

I have heard the argument that fetuses are parasites from pro-choice advocates, so perhaps that is where he gets hosts from. I'm pro -hoice however this idea factually inaccurate for a number of reasons not least becuase gestation is an active process that the mothers body is controlling. This is not another species exploiting a host animal.

Whist I don't agree with this bill or the logic he he is applying and agree women should have choice over their own bodies there is the following dilemma: Men don't get the same choice not to have a child when there is a disagreement over abortion ,therefore there is an imbalance there when it comes to responsibilities. Abortions happen mostly down to circumstances.

There is a proposal in some countries where men that don't want to have the child can sign away their legal responsibilities to the child,and are no longer legally a father or so a called male abortion. This must be done before an abortion can no longer legally take place.

That attempts to address a moral dilemma however there are obviously issues. Can you really sign away this, and does this mean this is irreversible. Is that compatible with basic human rights.

Ideally the woman should involve the man in any decision that can affect both of them. There is no perfect solution to this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... f85d625d95

I think the concept is interesting theoretically, but it has some problems with it.

The only reason why they are making it irreversible is becuase abortion is irreversible. However this violate a principle of rights. The child is alive it is not a terminal situation. Even adoption is not totally irreversible, you don't have an automatic right to legal responsibility over the child however you do have a right to establish contact, and like in adoption the child has a right to know who the father is.

If I ever made a girl pregnant, I would never "sign the rights away."

I would want to be the dad. I regret never having been a dad.

I think being a dad would have helped me quite a bit.

I would have made mistakes, sure....maybe some rather bad ones....but I would have learned from them.

And been able to give advice about how to be a good dad.