“Until viability the unborn baby can’t even survive without the mom’s body, they don’t deserve the right to life.”
The argument from viability has been thrown around for years, and for years it has been bad.
As always, it is important to define our terms.
Viability: The point at which a baby has the ability to survive outside the mother’s womb.
We have heard hundreds of times that the unborn do not have a right to life because they are fully dependent upon the mother’s body until viability.
The first glaring problem with this argument is that medical viability is entirely dependent upon the location of mother and baby. For example, if the mother is in a country that has limited medical technology available, the point of viability is significantly later in pregnancy. If a mother happens to be near one of the best hospitals in the world that is equipped with cutting edge neonatal care technology, the point of viability may be significantly sooner.
How could the same unborn baby be a person in New York City, but not if they were in Yemen?
Our right to life is not dependent upon our geography.
Not only is viability on a sliding scale based on location, but it is also entirely arbitrary. Why should it matter if someone can live without the help of another person?
If the pro-abortion argument from viability applies to the dependent child in the womb, it must also apply to dependent people outside the womb. There are many examples of people who are not fully independent, yet we understand they too have a basic right to life.
Newborn babies are hardly viable without the constant protection and nurturing of a caregiver, most often their mother. Similarly, a toddler is hardly viable without the protection and care of a parent or guardian. No two-year-old is going to pick up a spear and go hunt and process wild game for their sustenance; they need to be cared for by someone else. How about individuals with disabilities or the very elderly? They are not fully independent. Would the pro-abortion advocate suggest that they do not have the right to life either? Their stance quickly begins to resemble a form of eugenics!
Once again, we do not have the right to life because of what we can DO. We have the right to life because of what we ARE.
We know that life begins at fertilization when a distinct human being comes into existence. From that point forward they have a right to life.
As we continue to expand our growing catalog of pro-life answers to pro-abortion arguments, please feel free to submit suggestions at info@lifeissues.org. We will happily refute any arguments that you need help with.
Leave a Reply