I have called pregnant women aquariums/aquaria for the zygote or fetus when I have written sarcastically about the views of the so-called pro-lifers (or forced-birthers).
But all that talk about the care and maintenance of your inner aquarium wasn't intended to describe the actual views of forced-birthers, just to point out to them that what they so desired (laws stipulating that human life begins at conception) could logically result in half the humankind being viewed as containers for current, future or potential human beings.
Well, at least one "pro-lifer" already seems to have those views:
A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the right to end her pregnancy, Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) wrote in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views.
Martin, the former chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee, wrote a lengthy post about his opinions on women's bodies on his Facebook wall last week in response to a critical Valentine's Day card he received from reproductive rights advocates.
"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."
Martin has now changed his post so that the word "host" has been replaced by "the bearer of the child," and in the comments to the post he argues that the parenthetical "some refer to them as mothers" should have been enough to qualify the use of "host":
NARAL has attacked me for allegedly referring to mothers as "hosts" in this post, and the story has spread through HuffPo. To do so is to take my comments completely out of the context - which was me parroting their own arguments back to them. Please note that I accented that fact by parenthetically stating that some of us call them "mothers." The point of that parenthetical reference was to point out they are not "hosts." They are mothers. Mothers are a critically important lynchpin of society. Not just because of the nurturing of children they carry in their womb, and throughout their lives. But, also because of the compassion they carry, and their tireless commitment to all they do in homes, communities, and workplaces. With all that they also bring a perspective no one else can bring that serves us throughout their lifetime. The lesson to be learned here is that where an offense is sought it can be found.
Rrrright. Pro-choicers always regard pregnant women as hosts for fetuses.
In any case, that comment brings Martin firmly back into the Russian dolls view of women's fertility.
As an aside, one comment (by someone else) to Martin's post is worth highlighting here, because it represents the second major thrust of the anti-abortion people. The first one is the idea that conception means a person now exists, the second one is the idea that women are irresponsible if they have sex without being ready to become hosts for such a person:
Steve, I have long said that when a woman chooses to have unprotected sex for pleasure's sake knowing that a consequence could be pregnancy, she has ALREADY MADE her choice. These organizations aren't asking for the right to choose, they're asking for the right to change their mind at the expense of the unborn child who was the consequence of their choice.
Martin's response to that:
Norris, that is as well put as I've heard. That is exactly what they want. "They want others to pay for their life choices," financially, socially, and physically. The children have to physically die for their life choices, and society has to pay for it, both by financing it and by loss of valuable citizenry.
Now take that first comment and change "a woman" to "a man" and "she" to "he" and imagine the uproar that would follow! Would most pro-lifers preach the same responsibility message to men about sex? I very much doubt it. The society, in general, certainly doesn't, and some MRA guys preach the reverse message.
But never mind that. Note that Martin's response widens the reasons why he is opposed to abortions. It's not just about conception meaning full human rights for the zygote, but also something about "the loss of valuable citizenry" and who is to pay for all that sex.
Except that the public sector makes choices which cause us to lose "valuable citizenry" in Iraq and in Afghanistan and via lax gun laws etc., and the "life choices" people make will actually have higher societal costs (including more abortions) without such programs as publicly funded family planning services.