Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Michael Goff, Feb 26, 2014.
I dunno, seems like a pretty apt description.
Although that analogy/word use is usually made by people who DO think it's OK to abort the embryo/fetus, not those who don't...
Odd that a state senator would get so much heat from something much of his party believes.
And he's the pro life guy...
We are reaching for what is "controversial" these days. Is the mother not a "host" for the child?
No, she's not just a host for a fetus (not a child yet) -_-
No, not JUST A HOST, but a host non the less, and here is where we differ...I think it is a life, and you don't. I am going to guess I won't be able to change your mind and you won't be able to change mine . I think it was kind of picky to jump on the term "host".
Really, it's just picked up because of the fact that some elements of the Right Wing don't seem to have any respect for women.
Love the blanket statement. Great tactic of the Left. "The Right" has no respect for women. Let me ask you this .... is the woman a host for the unborn child?
Some elements of the left have no respect for unborn children.
Potential mother is what I refer to them as. I'm assuming that wasn't a rhetorical question, by the way.
Wow. That has to be the stupidest outrage/protest I have seen lately. Just goes to show you people will bitch and complain at just about anything.
Wow. You are quick. I saved and did an edit within a minute. You might read my changed post. I am interested in if you consider the woman a host for the child?
Just wondering if a friend has a miscarriage does the left say I am sorry you lost a fetus, or I am sorry you lost your child?
How about simply "I'm sorry for your loss."? Not every bloody thing has to be political. I mean, there is a time and place for politics; child loss is NEVER that time. I know that first hand.
The fetus/embryo just stopped by for a party the mother was hosting, and stayed for nine months...so be a good host.
I didn't blanket, I said SOME. I request that you don't take my words out of context, there's likely plenty wrong with them without the need to do that. As for the last sentence, I suppose that there are some who don't. The discussion should be when the fetus becomes a child.
And the big question is whether or not the woman is a host for an unborn child. I would say that is a very complicated question that deserves a larger answer than I think you really want.
"I am sorry for your loss" sounds about right to me.
Can we play
As you probably know there are many meanings to the word.
Here is the one that best fits I would think....
"Biology The animal or plant on which or in which another organism lives."
So why didn't he call the unborn "parasites" since he is referring the mothers as "hosts"?
Reading this thread, a number of things have struck me.
The first is a painful reminder that no matter how inconvenient right wingers find the whole idea of 'political correctness', (or, put another way, the tedious task of monitoring their mouth before something offensive seeps out), there is still a need to keep an eye on how language is used in the public space, and in situations where political, social and economic power is brought to bear.
Reading this thread, it is quite clear to me that there exist some right wing males who - deep down - doubt that women are real fully fledged human beings, with all of the rights concomitant upon that.
Whether the term host used in this context denotes someone playing host at a cocktail party or dinner party (but an extended one, one which lasts nine months), or a host in the strict biological sense, where another life form lives off a host, what is clear is that either definition serves to diminish still further any sense of the female as an autonomous adult a human actor with choices and rights.
Instead, the the use of the word 'host', however construed, denotes passive acceptance of one's lot, life and fate; things happen to hosts, they do not make things happen.
Aside from all that, the very sentence as quoted by the OP is profoundly offensive; I invite our right wingers (who think this is a fight over nothing, as per usual, refusing to recognise that names are power, and bestowing or conferring a name on something means that you are arrogating to yourself the right to name it and define it) to re-read that sentence.
The section of the sentence reads: 'the child's host (some refer to them as mothers)'….is astonishing in the breadth of its dismissive arrogance and ignorance. This sentence simultaneously attempts to award human status to a foetus while denying it to its mother. Quite extraordinary. This is really another take on the old 'incubator' mindset.
To speak rubbish and lies may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the good of "The Party" may be good.
Frankly I sometimes find political correctness tedious as well. There's a line.
In another thread people were being accused or racism for saying that Asians have a problem with sex selective abortion. Which is true.
Both China and India have outlawed sex selective abortion even though generally neither country has an issue with abortion rights being generally available. They wouldn't do that if it was a non issue.
She is a host for an unborn baby, not child.
What is the technical difference between baby, and child. I'm curious...
The point about political correctness is that it challenges the use of language as an abusive tool of power. Any use of language which serves to diminish and dehumanise and, by extensive, serve to deny rights to any group (on grounds of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) needs to be challenged.
This is because language is not neutral; it is used by the powerful against the less powerful, and it is used to define them in therms which serve - in general - to undermine them.
Re south-central Asia, yes, a number of countries/societies in that region have indeed, practiced, preferential gender selected abortion for quite some time. A reappraisal is occurring in some of them (China comes to mind), because, as is often the case, few of the consequences were foreseen.
A brand new term which - again - serves to deny the humanity - and thus, rights - of the mother, while insisting that whatever foetus she carries enjoys full human rights. Referring to a pregnant woman as 'a host' serves to reduce her to something akin to an incubator, or a passive vessel, one devoid of legal agency or human identity. The mindset behind this is - of course - unsurprisingly misogynistic.
Labeling an expecting mother as a "host" does "dehumanize" her to an extent, but I don't think the intent was to do so in a misogynistic way. Speaking as someone who is staunchly "pro life", far too often the narrative around the abortion centers only around the mother and the choice she has to make. That is fine and good to an extent, but the baby growing inside of her and the lack of a voice that he/she has in this decision making process is glossed over. Diminishing the humanity of the mother in an abstract sense in order to shine a light on the fact that there is a voiceless human growing inside of her is an interesting take on the "pro life" stance and one that I don't feel any any way de-values mothers or perpetuates any sort of misogynistic tone.
"Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty."
"An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless") is the very young offspring of a human or animal. When applied to humans, the term is usually considered synonymous with baby or bairn (Scotland), but the latter is commonly applied to the young of any animal. When a human child learns to walk, the term toddler may be used instead."