From experience, the "right to refuse" is always an "even if" sort of argument. Very few pro-choice people actually believe in fetal personhood but support abortion on bodily rights grounds. Those that do always either end up pro-life or end up in federal prison. Yes, there's a story there.
Pro-choice person here and for what it's worth, Isaac's perspective is what I also believe.
While I recognize the potential of a fetus to be a person, I don't actually consider it a person. Given the competing interests of the mother vs. the fetus, I weigh the interests of the mother much more significantly.
This is what a lot of my friends who are also pro-choice believe. I've actually never heard someone who's pro-choice say they believe a fetus is a person but they can be killed anyway. That's monstrous. I do hear people say, "For the sake of argument let's say the fetus is a person..." but if you probed them I bet most would clarify they don't see fetuses at a level of full personhood.
"I think the pro-choice side views a fetus as 'less than' a newborn, and much more as part of the woman’s body. . ."
– I don't know how this "part of" view still lingers on in these days of IVF. If you say that an embryo growing in a woman's body is part of her body, then you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish.
"you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish"
I think that's exactly the sort of argument they make. The embryo growing in an IVF lab has no personhood in their eyes, as evidenced by the numbers of embryos destroyed during the process. It may not be made of the same material as the petri dish, but it is contained and supported by the dish in the same way that a fetus is contained and supported by the uterus. Thus, the person who has control of the petri dish (or uterus) has control of the embryo; it has no rights of its own.
Thanks. If I understand correctly, you believe that some pro-choicers would defend "A fetus is part of the woman's body" with an argument that uses the premise "A living organism that is under someone's control has no rights (maybe even no identity, and therefore no rights) of its own."
I think we would not have to be unnerved by such an argument. Couldn't we reply –
"There are many organisms who are under someone's complete control, yet whom we recognize as persons. Newborns, for instance. Prisoners, for instance. Being under someone's complete control doesn't preclude personhood"
Hmm, I think there is a distinction to be made between "contained and supported by" and "under control." My point wasn't that the embryo was controlled by the petri dish. It's physically contained and supported by the petri dish. In that way, it's a "part of" the petri dish. The control only comes in when we consider who has control of the petri dish. The analogy with abortion is that the fetus is contained and supported entirely by the uterus, so it's a part of the uterus. It's not the control of the embryo or fetus that's the question, it's the fact that the fetus is a part of the uterus at that point; if it were removed from the uterus, it would be incomplete and likely die. Contrariwise, if you removed an infant from their parents' control, they would not be incomplete, and likely would not die, or if you removed the prisoner from the prison, they would not be incomplete. They're not a "part" of those controllers in the same way that a fetus is a "part" of the uterus.
All that being said, it's important to acknowledge that though infants and prisoners have a sense of personhood, they do still have much fewer rights than full adults because they are under the control of someone else. So, their "personhood" is significantly and noticeably depleted. It's not illogical to take that idea to its extreme: as a person gets younger, they have fewer and fewer rights until the number of rights reaches 0 before the point of birth. Tragic, cold, cruel, but not illogical.
In that case you would also be truly horrified to know how many fertilized eggs don't go to term during the IVF process. Also, the ones that are selected are then placed back inside the uterus. You should probably educate yourself about how things work before attempting to use them to support your arguments.
It seems that this sentence of yours could be paraphrased in a more complete way, spelling out what your "that" refers to, as:
"In case you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish, then you would also be truly horrified to know how many fertilized eggs don't go to term during the IVF process."
But I don't see how "you would also be truly horrified to know . . ." follows logically from "you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish." Please help me.
"Also, the ones that are selected are then placed back inside the uterus."
They are not placed "back," because prior to the IVF process ("F" standing for "fertilization"), they did not exist. But it is true that the ones that are selected are then placed inside the uterus. However, I don't see how what happens to them after being in a petri dish is relevant to how we think of them when they are in the petri dish.
My point was that when they are in the petri dish, whatever that time period may be, it is absurd to say that they are "part of" the dish and do not have their own identity as living things. By the same token, it is absurd to say that an embryo in a uterus is "part of" the woman's body and does not have have its own identity as a living thing.
Why does life have to start at fertilization? My sperm have just as much potential as those fertilized eggs in the petri dish. Shouldn't we start criminalizing masturbation? I just hope I don't wake up tomorrow to find out I had a nocturnal emission.
Okay, I guess the question of when a life starts has some relation to "part of the woman’s body" in the blog post, since my claim that an embryo has an identity of its own can only be true if its life has started.
"My sperm have just as much potential as those fertilized eggs in the petri dish."
A fertilized egg grows, without ever dying, to become a grown person like you or me, right? The zygote that grew into me never died and therefore grew continuously maintaining the same identity. So it had the potential to become me.
Does a sperm have the potential, all the while maintaining its same identity and only that identity, to become a grown person?
Identity is a social construct. Anyone can just assign arbitrary meaning to arbitrary terms to argue any stance on any topic. What are you babbling about? If I leave a fertilized egg in a petri dish what will happen? If I leave a nonviable fetus in a womb what will happen? If I force generations of victims of incestuous rape to carry their pregnancies to term what will happen?
While I recognize the potential of a fetus to be a person, I don't actually consider it a person. Given the competing interests of the mother vs. the fetus, I weigh the interests of the mother much more significantly.
This is what a lot of my friends who are also pro-choice believe. I've actually never heard someone who's pro-choice say they believe a fetus is a person but they can be killed anyway. That's monstrous. I do hear people say, "For the sake of argument let's say the fetus is a person..." but if you probed them I bet most would clarify they don't see fetuses at a level of full personhood.
"I think the pro-choice side views a fetus as 'less than' a newborn, and much more as part of the woman’s body. . ."
– I don't know how this "part of" view still lingers on in these days of IVF. If you say that an embryo growing in a woman's body is part of her body, then you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish.
I think that's exactly the sort of argument they make. The embryo growing in an IVF lab has no personhood in their eyes, as evidenced by the numbers of embryos destroyed during the process. It may not be made of the same material as the petri dish, but it is contained and supported by the dish in the same way that a fetus is contained and supported by the uterus. Thus, the person who has control of the petri dish (or uterus) has control of the embryo; it has no rights of its own.
I think we would not have to be unnerved by such an argument. Couldn't we reply –
"There are many organisms who are under someone's complete control, yet whom we recognize as persons. Newborns, for instance. Prisoners, for instance. Being under someone's complete control doesn't preclude personhood"
– ?
All that being said, it's important to acknowledge that though infants and prisoners have a sense of personhood, they do still have much fewer rights than full adults because they are under the control of someone else. So, their "personhood" is significantly and noticeably depleted. It's not illogical to take that idea to its extreme: as a person gets younger, they have fewer and fewer rights until the number of rights reaches 0 before the point of birth. Tragic, cold, cruel, but not illogical.
It seems that this sentence of yours could be paraphrased in a more complete way, spelling out what your "that" refers to, as:
"In case you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish, then you would also be truly horrified to know how many fertilized eggs don't go to term during the IVF process."
But I don't see how "you would also be truly horrified to know . . ." follows logically from "you would have to say that an embryo growing in an IVF lab is part of its petri dish." Please help me.
"Also, the ones that are selected are then placed back inside the uterus."
They are not placed "back," because prior to the IVF process ("F" standing for "fertilization"), they did not exist. But it is true that the ones that are selected are then placed inside the uterus. However, I don't see how what happens to them after being in a petri dish is relevant to how we think of them when they are in the petri dish.
My point was that when they are in the petri dish, whatever that time period may be, it is absurd to say that they are "part of" the dish and do not have their own identity as living things. By the same token, it is absurd to say that an embryo in a uterus is "part of" the woman's body and does not have have its own identity as a living thing.
Okay, I guess the question of when a life starts has some relation to "part of the woman’s body" in the blog post, since my claim that an embryo has an identity of its own can only be true if its life has started.
"My sperm have just as much potential as those fertilized eggs in the petri dish."
A fertilized egg grows, without ever dying, to become a grown person like you or me, right? The zygote that grew into me never died and therefore grew continuously maintaining the same identity. So it had the potential to become me.
Does a sperm have the potential, all the while maintaining its same identity and only that identity, to become a grown person?