We're on a roll! So far, anyway ...
Well, because of all the issues that you and Mikaela mentioned, it seems to me disingenuous to claim that the abortion issue revolves entirely around a woman's right to control her own body. If, after considering all the evidence one way or the other concerning fetal rights, one still does not believe it has any, then it seems that should be the focus of the pro-choice argument. If there's a measure of doubt, then it still seems the pro-choice argument should somehow deal with it or risk sounding arrogant.
There is always going to be a measure of doubt for some people for anything. Why should those doubts be focused upon? It would be like focusing our justice system on the possiblity that we may be wrong. While that
is a possibility, we don't continually focus on our justice system that way.
By ignoring the fetus' status
As you pointed out below, the fetus' status is currently under flux and will be for some time. Right now, the fetus doesn't have a legal status until it reaches a certain stage of development - when it is viable outside the womb. Or at least in some states. This is why in the Laci Peterson case, Scott was tried for two murders instead of one. The unborn baby was viable but still inside the womb. Had he murdered her when she was only a few months along, he would have only been tried for one murder.
pro-choicers sound as if they believe a woman's right to nine months of bodily control, valid though that might be, unquestionably takes priority
See, I don't see a problem here. Why shouldn't her rights take priority? It
is her body. That did not change.
over those of a hypothetical human to enjoy its potential life
Potentiality isn't something one should base rights upon. A woman may become pregnant, then spontaneously abort. The potentiality came to naught. Every pre-med student has the
potential to be a doctor. The fact that the majority don't make it through med school and get licensed is an extremely important distinction.
one that she helped bring into being.
So she can bring it into being, but as soon as she does, she no longer has control over it?
And weakening it slightly more, IMO, is the question of father's rights. I keep alluding to this only briefly, but actually I think it's very important -- should the father have any say in a woman's having an abortion? Should he have any say in whether she has and keeps the baby, knowing that means he'll be responsible for 18 years of support if she does? Why does the woman get all the power to decide on a matter that huge and life-altering?
These are excellent and very difficult to answer questions. Should the father have a say? And if so, what weight does his say carry?
After all, how many people do you read about where the father grudgingly pays or doesn't pay child support?
His issue? "I didn't want her to have the baby. SHE chose to have it. Why do I have to pay for HER decision?"
Should he have the right to sign away his rights and responsibilities of the child should his say in the matter go directly against the woman's?
I would wonder how many women would change their minds about having a baby should the father have the option to
not help her financially.
Or worse, he wants the baby badly, but she does not? How can that possibly be reconciled?
The woman usually has the most power in the decision because in the end, she has to carry the child. Again, it's the bodily sovreignty issue again. It's
her body that will take the full impact of the 9 months,
her body that is irrevocably changed,
her life that she is risking to have the child.