Oklahoma legislators are trying to ban abortion, nothing new there. One of the bills wants any woman seeking a termination to first have permission from whoever did the impregnating. Rep. Justin Humphrey wrote HB 1441, and he expanded on his reasoning:
At first, Humphrey said that the original intention of the bill was to ensure that fathers are involved in supporting a child from conception. “I was wanting fathers to have to pay child support at the beginning,” he said, but that specific language was excised from the bill.
Ultimately, he said, his intent was to let men have a say. “I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions,” he said. “I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of 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,” he explained. “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.”
Let that sink in a bit. If you’re capable of getting pregnant and live in Oklahoma, you might want to get out, screaming all the way. Why is it, that women bear all the responsibility for “pre-knowing” something? Don’t men also “pre-know” they are wandering about with a loaded penis? Also, you dimwitted dipshit of a person, you can use contraceptives, correctly, and still end up pregnant. This is known as shit happens. Jesus Fuck.
The Intercept has the story.
Compulsory vasectomies for all testicle-havers would remove the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
And hosts reserve the right to expel unwanted guests from their home.
His own metaphor is shitty.
Funny thing how all these idiots who spout about “pre-knowing” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and “taking precautions” also insist on restricting or sometimes downright banning contraception.
But no, this is not about subjugation of women, nosireee, nononono, this is about the sanctity of life /sarc.
Oh, fuck, that “pre-know’ business. That’s idiocy. Either you know something or you don’t. What the fuck condition you’re supposed to be in to “pre-know”, I have no idea.
@Caine
It’s simple. You pre-know facts that when they turn out to not be facts they’re in actuality alternative facts. Easy.
It would be a lot easier to ‘pre-know’ and not get pregnant if there was an available, easily accessible system of education that taught people how to avoid pregnancy, and then gave them the resources to actually take steps to avoid pregnancy.
Funny how that works.
Host, my ass. People are allowed to be rude hosts, we’re not under some weird medieval hospitality rules. Either way, I think those had a time-limit of three days or so anyway. Meh.
“Pre-know don’t get pregnant,” but they’re not forthcoming with coverage for contraception, are they?
Anyone who calls a pregnant woman a “host” can’t complain when others call a fetus a “parasite”.
Anyone who calls a pregnant woman or other pregnant person a “host” can’t complain about being called a punching bag and subsequently hit in the face.
It’s time for a “no sex with republicans” law.
Sorry, Marcus, no exception. Because liberal men can just get you as pregnant as conservative men and no matter how much pro choice the dude is, having to ask for his permission because you’re now just a host jointly owned by him and the fetus is degrading.
Besides, remember all the “feminist guys” who turn out to be sexual predators? I wouldn’t trust any “I’m pro choice” until the shit hits the fan and he proves his worth. A lot of “pro choice dudes” will seize power when offered. Some will deny you their “consent”, others will use it as a leverage. And a lot more will demand cookies for graciously allowing you to have an abortion.
If only the Republicans cared as much about the woman’s permission before impregnation.
So many good comments!! Thanks chigau, Siobhan, Charly, rq, and Pierce R. Butler! These were all the kinds of ideas rolling around in my head when I read the OP.
Question: since when is it assumed that someone being a host means you can take a permissive, rule-ignoring, shit-on-their-rug attitude with them? Since when is it assumed that, when people volunteer to be a host, that this is the kind of behaviour they’re going to condone? Does this idea stem from before the blogosphere Freeze Peach brigade? Or earlier than that? Because if I’m the host, it’s my rules, whether those rules apply to cleanliness, behaviour or who’s allowed in at all. I just find it so confusing that becoming a ‘host’ suddenly demotes you to the doormat for others to use as they please. (And when it comes to women, we’re not public property or a national resource -- yet. So it’s definitely a private hosting type of deal.)
rq:
I think that while it might be presented as host / guest situation, what they actually mean is host / parasite, and they assign more value to the parasite, because that allows them to control and punish women.
Even in that context, I think pregnancy is the only situation where the parasite is seen as a positive and more important thing than the host. I mean, I don’t see any legislation protecting the rights of tapeworm. Eh.
rq
Depends on your view on the “host” in the first place.
So I imagined that photo of trump signing the global gag rule surrounded by seven men and no women?