Because Who Cares If "Hosts" Suffer and Die

It's good that the vicious "pro-life" motherfuckers aren't bothering to hide their real agenda anymore, but it's also a sign of how powerful they've become, and how acceptable their real agenda is in far too many places. Like Kentucky.

Digby:

I frequently use the inflammatory phrase "birthing vessels" to describe how the anti-abortion zealots see women, and have taken a fair amount of grief for it from liberal allies who think I'm unnecessarily upsetting all those millions of truly decent people who are morally unsettled by the idea that women are just getting themselves pregnant willy-nilly and killing little babies for their own convenience. After all, nobody really thinks that women are just vessels, right?

"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it."

That's what a woman is to these people: a "host" for a child. Not even a human being.

From the beginning women have been, at best, second class citizens. First they were property, now they are "hosts", but no matter what, their basic human rights are always tenuous and always subject to being redefined.

The man who revealed this little insight into his true beliefs has changed the word "host" on his Facebook page to say "bearer of the child" instead. I think he actually believes that makes a difference.

 Because this is what they really want.