Read Time: 3 minutes

Introduction:

The concept of viability is often used in the abortion debate to determine whether the fetus, aka the baby, has a right to life. This common standard for determining who should be protected under the law has many flaws.

Definitions and Language:

The Viability Medical Definition: It is defined as the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The Viability General Definition: It is the ability of any organism to survive and thrive within its natural or compatible environment.

How do we Determine Viability:

This may sound like a simple question since viability is defined as just the ability of the baby to survive outside the womb. However, it isn’t simple at all because in what way do we actually use it in practice?

Option 1: Single-Case – This is by far the safest metric to apply to the idea of viability. For example, as of the writing of this article, the youngest child to survive being born prematurely is at 21 weeks; therefore, abortion should be outlawed at 21 weeks or older. The main problem with this line of reasoning is why a baby born at 20 weeks and 6 days would lack human dignity based on a single day. Another issue with this idea is that it’s based on an outlier.

Option 2: Statistical Probability – This option is based on the likelihood of survival outside the womb (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%) among premature births. The problem with this metric is that it is completely arbitrary. How is the survival rate determined? Furthermore, how does the rate of their survival prove that they should be protected?

Option 3: Survival Quota – This option defines viability by a set number of children who have successfully survived premature births recorded (e.g., 5, 100, 250). The simple logical failure of this standard comes down to a simple question: Why does this arbitrarily picked number determine legal protections instead of a different one? If human rights depend on a random milestone, what is the point of having a viability-based abortion limit?

Option 4: Geographic location – This way of testing viability is purely based on the location where the baby happens to live. This can be based on any locational difference chosen (e.g., nation, state/province, hospital, county, or city). It is probably the worst way of defining viability because it can be a logistical nightmare depending on the location type chosen. Another issue with this idea is: how do you choose which location type to use, and what is the logical reason for picking one location over another?

The Concept of Viability:

The true failure of viability is not just that it is impossible to measure fairly; it is that the entire concept rests on a deeply flawed logical foundation. To properly expose this flawed reasoning, we can look at the general version of viability to see how it stands up under scrutiny.

For example, an endangered bird is perfectly viable in the sky or in its nest, but it is not viable fifty feet underwater. Similarly, humans are not viable on Mars without advanced technology. Does this make it acceptable to kill the endangered bird or the human because they can’t survive in the location you want them to? Hopefully, you said no. So, why is it completely acceptable to kill an unborn baby because it isn’t viable outside the womb? The womb is its natural environment, so if anything, the baby is viable in the womb.

Lastly, there is a second contradiction under the mainstream pro-choice view: the viability argument often comes from the bodily autonomy argument, but the child is still in the womb, so there are only two logical conclusions: bodily autonomy is not absolute, or there needs to be the ability for early birth or abortion. Under the mainstream pro-choice view, they would lose bodily autonomy. Both of these outcomes make the idea of viability seem even more arbitrary.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, defining the right to status based on viability does start to look like an arbitrary excuse or flawed reasoning rather than a sound, consistent principle. It is easy to exploit.