Ethics and Philosophy are not dependant upon subjective thought.
In Ethics and Philosophy, subjective thought can and should be avoided.

At what stage in a human being's life do you think he/she first has the right to live?

When it would be likely to survive outside the womb- this is getting earlier all the time, but I understand that few babies born before five months gestation survive. Even then, before seven months, things are very dicey.

If it cannot, even with all our sophisticated neonatal care, survive outside of the womb, then I do not consider it to be a 'real' person yet.

So rather than granting reproductive concessions to men, women’s right to choose could simply be revoked the moment someone develops an artificial womb.

Ignoring the last irrelevant response, I'm struck by the silliness of this:

"In Ethics and Philosophy, subjective thought can and should be avoided."

I may be missing something here, but isn't all thought subjective?

"At what stage in a human being's life do you think he/she first has the right to live?"

When s/he is born. It ain't rocket science or theology. It's in the actual process of being born and thus being recognised as a person.

That's why abortion of a foetus is both moral and legal in this society. Because it hasn't been born.

And that is an objective standard that I find acceptable according to my admittedly subjective 'ethics and philosophy', thank you very much. Further, according to successive ABS Australian Family Studies the great majority of Australian voters agree with me.

Those who wish to try and impose their extreme religious-based views on us, with respect to the availability of safe and legal abortions to women who need them, are (IMHO) about as welcome as any other religious extremists who wish to impose their extreme minority views on the rest of us.

Sorry, I meant Australian Election Studies.

This correction means that I can't respond for 24 hours :(

Jose
“Ethics and Philosophy are not dependant upon subjective thought.
In Ethics and Philosophy, subjective thought can and should be avoided.”

My Personal Ethics and Personal Philosophy are determined by my subjective perspective as I view the world and all the events which influence me. You likewise perceive the world through some similar rose (or other) coloured subjective lense wear.

As Mahatma duck wrote “I may be missing something here, but isn't all thought subjective?”

I tend to agree MD – science reflects external influences defined in absolute terms like laws of physics, the elemental table and observations of biological fact.
Such observations are absolute and unchanging. So “scientific thought” may be “objective”.

However, whilst ethics, morality and philosophy may embrace aspects of scientific absolutes but they also contain subjective aspects. These subjective aspects change with fashion and social expectation. A philosophic / moral value which once proclaimed the “Divine Right of Kings” and was enshrined in Law no longer holds any value in contemporary society, illustrating the “subjective nature” of morality and philosophy and from that – the laws of the land.

At what stage in a human being's life do you think he/she first has the right to live?

AS MDuck observed – from point of birth there is a change in state and from that moment a foetus is recognised has being “an individual” or a person with human rights.

I agree with the Duck!