Pro Choice people only?

Question

This is strictly a question about life, I don't want to hear about the woman, because I've heard it before.

I have found that in a pregnancy termination debate, little focus is on when life begins.

So without reading off answers of other people, quickly answer when you think "it's not ok".

This includes zygote, fetus, development of specific organs or senses, maybe even fully developed infants already born, premature babies..

What is acceptable? and what is not? Does this factor matter? Why or why not?

Please be thorough in your answers, I'm trying to get some philosophical meaning out of this.

Answer 1

I find it helpful to talk about the following scenario: In the not too distant future, there will be a lab somewhere that grows a human life without a woman involved.  They'll mix a sperm and an egg and life will grow.  It will be human.  It will grow from 1 month, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 24 months all without ever being born.  

When does that human obtain rights?  There's no birth.  At some point, that human obtains a right to live and be free from the lab.

When are the scientists no longer allowed to terminate that life?

Answer 2

We can never tell when exactly life begins. Logically we should not risk killing life. Therefore we should not accept any abortions through the danger of killing innocent life.

Answer 3

IMO it ceases to be ok when, if born, there's a chance the baby could live. This point is getting earlier all the time.

Answer 4

I want to look at this debate from a different angle, and look at some of the ideas of Peter Singer. He pointed out that the central argument against abortion is based on the conclusion which is inferred from two others (the premises).

1st premises: killing innocent life is wrong

2nd premises: life begins at conception, the fetus is innocent

conclusion; abortion is wrong.

Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a 'human' or 'alive' at some point after conception; however, Singer remarks that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

    "[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life." (Rethinking Life and Death 105)

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

I think that  on the whole i agree with his argument, and it raises a very interesting point about innocent life, it is quite shocking at first to think some one is suggesting that in some circumstances its ok to kill the innocent! but then if we think of the wars etc. that we enter knowing innocent people will die! Its a difficult question! but hope i got people thinking at least.

Answer 5

To me, I don't care much about when life begins. I think that abortion becomes wrong as soon as the fetus becomes capable of suffering. The problem is, we don't know exactly when that is. Almost all reliable, unbiased scientific evidence shows that the fetus develops the ability to suffer sometime toward the end of the 2nd trimester or later. Most studies show it's about 20-24 weeks into the pregnancy. I say to be on the safe side, abortion should be acceptable in the first trimester only, at least until we have more evidence to show when the fetus can suffer. Of course, if there's a serious health risk to the mother, or some other extreme circumstance, an abortion would be OK later in the pregnancy, but abortion on request, it should be limited to the 1st trimester. I agree with you that people focus on the wrong things when debating abortion. It's always either "her body, her choice" or "the Bible says life begins at conception, so abortion should be illegal". I don't completely agree with either. There needs to be a balance between giving women the right to do what they wish with their body, and preventing unnecessary suffering of the unborn.

Answer 6

life begins when the child is born.

Answer 7

The child is the absolute property of the parent until it gets a job and moves out.  Such child can be "aborted" any time before that!

Answer 8

I think about 3 months. I think that is a point where a human becomes more than a cell, and grows parts that are human.