• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Apparently women's bodies are considered 'hosts', according to one US lawmaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
"host" makes it sounds like they are carrying the offspring of a parasite.

Get some lawyers to write your laws, not some preacher.
 

MsKrisp

Member
Pro Life is such a crock of horseshit as none of these fuckers give a damn about the child once its born. After that its fuck'em, but at least they were born! Then they fight tooth and nail against programs to help the poor, children, education and anything else that could probably help said children and children in general.

I feel like pro-life is all about policing women's behavior. It's clear they don't give a damn about the "sanctity of life"
 
I have no idea why is abortion IS SUCH A FUCK'IN BIG deal to these men? Why do they have to care what women have to do with their Vagina? It's shocking how a developed country still debates these issues. Very shameful and stupid.
 

Koomaster

Member
Here's the thing though; invites can be retracted. I can host a party, invite people over, but I can kick anyone out of my own home at any time for any reason. So his whole analogy falls to pieces since 'invites' are up to the 'host's' discretion to rescind whenever they see fit.
 

Nivash

Member
That analogy doesn't even make sense on its own. Hosts reserve the right to kick out unwanted house guests.
 
That analogy doesn't even make sense on its own. Hosts reserve the right to kick out unwanted house guests.

His arguments also have zero legal precedence supporting it, but there's lot's supporting the exact opposite (Roe v Wade and privacy/bodily integrity).
 

Kadin

Member
General rule: if the article you are basing a thread on is more than an hour old, it almost assuredly has a thread.
Yeah for sure. The article I linked and based this on was from late today but your point stands. Simple searching is usually what I do and is most of time enough. Clearly it wasn't this time... lol
 

Airola

Member
Here's the thing though; invites can be retracted. I can host a party, invite people over, but I can kick anyone out of my own home at any time for any reason. So his whole analogy falls to pieces since 'invites' are up to the 'host's' discretion to rescind whenever they see fit.

Change "kick anyone out" to "kill everyone inside and then kick them out" and then your analogy works. Because that's what the guy is against, the killing of the new person "hosted" by the woman. You are fighting shadows as long as you don't understand the core of the issue as the pro-life people see it. There is zero chance of them understanding your side until you understand what their point is.

This "kicking people out from the party" analogy only proves you haven't understood what the core of their belief about this subject is. In their analogy the context is that once the invited person is inside the house the person can't live outside of the house anymore and it's 100% certain death if you remove that person too early.
 

zeemumu

Member
Oh we sure did, that was my bad. I searched for 'host' and not 'hosts' like I should have done. Stupid rookie mistake... :(

I just had to make sure I wasn't crazy because I had sworn that I commented on this before but couldn't find my post in this thread, ahaha.
 
Change "kick anyone out" to "kill everyone inside and then kick them out" and then your analogy works. Because that's what the guy is against, the killing of the new person "hosted" by the woman. You are fighting shadows as long as you don't understand the core of the issue as the pro-life people see it. There is zero chance of them understanding your side until you understand what their point is.

This "kicking people out from the party" analogy only proves you haven't understood what the core of their belief about this subject is. In their analogy the context is that once the invited person is inside the house the person can't live outside of the house anymore and it's 100% certain death if you remove that person too early.

The analogy should be "in your body" then the pro-life side comes crashing down from a legal POV. After all, no one born and alive has those rights pro-lifers want to grant the unborn and fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent.

The U.S. lawmaker isn't basing his arguments on anything remotely close to a legal argument to overturn Roe.

Perhaps the pro-life side need to comeback with better arguments than the same ones since 1973.
 
george+carlin+blogspot+3.jpg

Carlin was so fucking on point about politics all the time...it's like he was a goddamn political prophet or something.
 
Disgusting. What a disgusting thing to say. I wish I could say it to him in person.

Now that I think about it, it does make men seem like the parasites. Double dickhead.
 
Change "kick anyone out" to "kill everyone inside and then kick them out" and then your analogy works. Because that's what the guy is against, the killing of the new person "hosted" by the woman. You are fighting shadows as long as you don't understand the core of the issue as the pro-life people see it. There is zero chance of them understanding your side until you understand what their point is.

This "kicking people out from the party" analogy only proves you haven't understood what the core of their belief about this subject is. In their analogy the context is that once the invited person is inside the house the person can't live outside of the house anymore and it's 100% certain death if you remove that person too early.

Fetuses are a gestational stage of human animal natal development (everyone can agree on that part), but until that fetus can live outside the body on its own, I wouldn't grant it personhood rights.

What is so hard to understand about this?

I'll give you a one word answer: religion.

Religion is a problem, as it obfuscates the ability of a person to think rationally.
 
there's only 3 people involved in a pregnancy/reproduction that have agency
the fetus
the father
the insurance company
corporations are people
 
Pro Life is such a crock of horseshit as none of these fuckers give a damn about the child once its born. After that its fuck'em, but at least they were born! Then they fight tooth and nail against programs to help the poor, children, education and anything else that could probably help said children and children in general.

Yup, just one more way to increase their power. Disgusting.
 

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
He makes it sound like a parasite using host.
That's what pregnancy is. Just because it's reproductive doesn't mean it's not a parasite/host relationship.

That's some fucked up reasoning though.
 

Dryk

Member
The analogy fails anyway if I invite you in, I can ask you to leave whenever I want and you have to go. If ya don't go I can even call the police and have you forcibly removed.
Well I mean that's how pro-choice people have been using the analogy for the longest time. I dunno why this guy thinks that leaning into the host/parasite thing is going to help his case.
 
Well I mean that's how pro-choice people have been using the analogy for the longest time. I dunno why this guy thinks that leaning into the host/parasite thing is going to help his case.

Yeah I read that and thought oh so I'm totally allow to just straight up call the fetus parasite? Because that's what it is in the end/
 

Media

Member
I mean, most people when they discover they are hosting a parasite freak out and go to the doctor to get it removed.

Sorry, I was not a 'host' for four my pregnancies. My third did not miscarry because I was a bad host. Nor was I a bad host when the last was born too early. I was a woman who happened to pregnant and wanted kids. I later had a hysterectomy due to complications with the last kids. Everyone else can stay out of music medical decisions thanks. It seems if some had their way, I do nothing but pump out babies even if it wasn't healthy for me.
 

YourMaster

Member
To be fair, it is kinda unfortunate for men who would love to have that baby, but forcing women to carry it and give birth to it is no option.
And of course, the fetus has no intrinsic value, so it is not a party to be considered at all.

What would be a proper solution is to work on techniques to transfer the fetus from her to him and allow him to poop it out several months down the line.
 

devilhawk

Member
It's bullshit because there's no safe way confirm the father of a child until it's gone a full term and born

the whole point is to try and delay the abortions more and more so they eventually force women to carry full term just from basically holding them at legal gunpoint.

So if someone goes "hey that's my kid in there", you file a thing in court, the woman goes through the pregnancy, pays the body price, then it turns out it wasn't his kid, he goes "oh well" and walks away

there's just so many wrong things about this idea in the first place..
That hasn't been true for over 5 years. Here is one such available assay:http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1113044#t=article
 
His argument is to blame the woman for everything. Wow typical. Maybe the male should have exercised better seeding judgment.

Options make our life better, we shall have them.

Often times the woman wants the baby over the impregnating male anyway. But regardless, a woman's body, a woman's choice.
 
Ever since that iconic X-Files episode back in the day, I've been somewhat uncomfortable with the use of the word 'host', especially in this context.

Thehost.jpg


So, yeah, crazy republican dude, this is what you're effectively reducing women to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom