Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • First, we are looking for questions and especially answers based on philosophical writings, not discussions of philosophical subject matter. Second, the main question is about whether abortion should be allowed - and if so up to which point and under which circumstances. This is a normative question science cannot answer, because it is, methodologically, not able to. All other things are but arguments brought forward for either side. That's why I also think that "when is it human" is not a scientific question as stated.
    – Philip Klöcking ♦
    Commented May 24, 2017 at 15:17
  • 1
    Biological Science can, does, and should seek summary explanations for any and all aspects of living organisms, especially the definition and beginning of life. To avoid such aspects because of politics and public controversy is like The Church telling Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo to shut up. A normative (non-scientific) question can become positive, with a willingness to discover the answer. Regardless, Philosophy ought not to fear or avoid the question of when life begins. Civil and Criminal Law must answer. So should Science.
    – G-write
    Commented May 25, 2017 at 18:55
  • Science does not "avoid the issue". Science can give specific answers to well-defined questions. "Becoming a human being" is, alas, poorly defined. Pro-choice people generally assume that while a fetus has no chance to be conscious, it can't yet be said to become a human being. Science can confirm that while the fetus doesn't have enough brain cells, it's no more conscious than a mouse. However, this won't convince pro-life people who just choose some other criteria, like heartbeat or the potential to become human if everything goes right.
    – IMil
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 0:46
  • But the rights to life and liberty conflict. Are you obligated to feed a homeless man who takes up residence in your attic without your permission? OK, so say he is too ill to go elsewhere and he would clearly starve to death otherwise. Does the fact he is in your home, and you are the only person who could intervene and save him obligate you to take care of him for 9 months, until he is better? You can assume the fetus is a human being, and still find the mother has a choice as to whether to take care of it. The question is where life and liberty balance out.
    – user9166
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 14:15