I have come up with a new argument regarding viability.
One dividing line for the acceptability of abortion, commonly used by pro-choicers (and the main one used in Roe v Wade), is that of viability. That is, the time after which the baby is capable of surviving (assisted) outside the mother's womb.
In previous debates I have argued that viability is not a reasonable dividing line.
But I have recently thought of a different/additional approach to take: to argue that taking viability as the dividing line actually implies that the dividing point in time is at fertilization, when taken to the logical conclusion.
First, a reminder that the necessity of assistance does not negate viability. After all 5-year-olds require assistance to survive. And viable premature births may require advanced technology (and many such babies go on to live normal lives).
Now, as technology improves, the line of viability moves earlier. Earlier premature births are able to be saved. So my previous argument was that the right to life has to do with what kind of being the baby is, and is not determined by external technology. And thus viability is irrelevant.
But instead let's take it a step further. I think it is highly likely that technology will continue to improve and one day will reach the point where the point of viability is pushed right back to fertilization. Human wombs exist. There is no reason to suppose that man-made wombs are impossible. And just because we don't know now how to do it, does not contradict its being possible. And if it is possible, then it is possible for a human being to survive outside the mother's womb from fertilization.
Therefore human beings are viable from fertilization.
Put it another way: if viability is to be used for determining the right to to life, then we have to interpret viability as an attribute of the kind of being the baby is (and not as any external accident). If human beings are the kind of being that can ever possibly survive outside the mother's womb from fertilization (via any conceivable technology), then they are viable from fertilization.
Thoughts?
One dividing line for the acceptability of abortion, commonly used by pro-choicers (and the main one used in Roe v Wade), is that of viability. That is, the time after which the baby is capable of surviving (assisted) outside the mother's womb.
In previous debates I have argued that viability is not a reasonable dividing line.
But I have recently thought of a different/additional approach to take: to argue that taking viability as the dividing line actually implies that the dividing point in time is at fertilization, when taken to the logical conclusion.
First, a reminder that the necessity of assistance does not negate viability. After all 5-year-olds require assistance to survive. And viable premature births may require advanced technology (and many such babies go on to live normal lives).
Now, as technology improves, the line of viability moves earlier. Earlier premature births are able to be saved. So my previous argument was that the right to life has to do with what kind of being the baby is, and is not determined by external technology. And thus viability is irrelevant.
But instead let's take it a step further. I think it is highly likely that technology will continue to improve and one day will reach the point where the point of viability is pushed right back to fertilization. Human wombs exist. There is no reason to suppose that man-made wombs are impossible. And just because we don't know now how to do it, does not contradict its being possible. And if it is possible, then it is possible for a human being to survive outside the mother's womb from fertilization.
Therefore human beings are viable from fertilization.
Put it another way: if viability is to be used for determining the right to to life, then we have to interpret viability as an attribute of the kind of being the baby is (and not as any external accident). If human beings are the kind of being that can ever possibly survive outside the mother's womb from fertilization (via any conceivable technology), then they are viable from fertilization.
Thoughts?
Comment