- The Oklahoma rep behind the state’s most recent abortion bill thinks it’s time men were allowed a little more say in what women do with their bodies — because women are mere “hosts” who don’t always treat their wombs responsibly.
- “I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions,” Oklahoma Rep. Justin Humphrey told The Intercept.
- His bill, HB 1441, would require women seeking abortions to first obtain the father’s written permission.
- “I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he continued, referring to women. “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.” Read more (2/14/17 8:00 AM)
So that implies that fetuses are parasites, then? Well dude, you know what I’m gonna do if I get a tapeworm. Shouldn’t all parasites be treated equally?**
Not that that was actually what you were aiming for but… Think before you speak, if you know when you say words that people are going to interpret them certain ways, so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t use language that could lead to people drawing very different conclusions from the one you want them to.
Also go sit on a cactus.
**(not my actual opinion of fetuses entirely, though I acknowledge that they do share some key features with the general category “parasites” and do not think anyone who wishes to view an unwanted fetus growing inside them as parasitic and seek medical treatment to remedy the situation is in the wrong to do so, I also do not wish to impose that term on people who want the fetus inside them to be there)
Wait, is he claiming that pro choice women see the fetus as a literal part of their body?
Because I don’t hear people saying that.
I hear people saying “I have jurisdiction over my body, and it is not immoral and should not be illegal for me to evict an unwanted tenant in my body, *even if* that necessitates the tenant’s demise.”
Also if “a host” doesn’t have the right to refuse to host other lifeforms, then doesn’t that imply that when the alien symbionts finally make contact with us, any human who doesn’t like that arrangement will just have to deal with it?
Even the males?
Seriously, how is nine months of inconvenience worth someone else’s *life*?
If the alien symbionts would die without a host and only need one for a short amount of time, during which the host can continue to do what they please with only minor lifestyle changes, and the symbionts don’t have any ability to choose who their host is, then I’d say that it’s reasonable not to kill them simply because you’d rather not have a symbiont attached to you.