8th of December
By Alex Ruggles
The concept of viability is a widely used argument in the abortion debate. But what does ‘viability’ really mean in the pro-life/pro-choice context? The term is commonly used to denote a baby’s ability to survive outside of the womb. It is usually used by those who support abortion up to a certain gestational stage such as when a human infant can supposedly survive unaided outside of the womb. The argument often goes along the lines of ‘abortion is acceptable up to the stage of when a baby could potentially survive by itself outside of the womb.’ This argument is rooted in a number of inaccuracies and the purpose of this article is to refute the principles on which it is built.
The first flaw in the viability debate is its assumption of the child’s supposed ability to live ‘independently’ outside of the womb. When a child is born, they enter the world completely helpless and dependent on the help and care of others to survive. For the first few years of their lives they are completely dependent on others for their survival and indeed this dependency exists to a lesser extent up to the age of legal adulthood and beyond. A child is dependent primarily on their parents or guardian, but for them to thrive a large number of other individuals such as doctors, teachers and farmers are also required. The concept of a newborn baby being ‘viable’ or able to live independently is laughable. A baby is not born with the skills readymade for their own survival; these skills must be grown and nurtured until that child is able to enter the adult world. Even in the adult world, an individual can in no way be seen to be able to exist in a totally independent, autonomous and self-sustaining manner. As John Donne so famously said, ‘No man is an island’.
A superficially more refined argument espousing the viability position is that it is not so much a child’s ability to live ‘independently’ (a fictitious illusion as has already been discussed) but their predicted ability to survive outside of their mothers’ womb with the aid of medical assistance that determines their viability. This argument, whilst making more sense than the one referring to a child’s ability to live ‘independently’ outside of the womb, is still deeply flawed and steeped in inaccuracies. This is because it renders the worth of human life totally subjective. Medical science is constantly evolving and making incredible improvements in its ability to save the lives of premature babies. Indeed, within the Infant life (preservation) Act of 1929, it was presumed that only children born after 28 weeks gestation were capable of being born alive.[1] Later the presumption of viability was seen to be 24 weeks in the Reform of the Infant life (preservation act) as stated in its second reading in February 1987.[2] However, of babies born at 23 weeks in 2016, 38% survived-double the rate 10 years previously.’[3] It is highly likely that advances in medicine will enable premature babies to survive at gestational stages even closer to conception in the future. Yet, if an individual human being has innate worth, then their ability to live outside the womb should not be the criteria by which we recognise their right to life. Whilst advances in medicine are incredibly important and necessary, a child’s inability to live outside the womb should not be a justification for abortion; the direct and intentional killing of that human life. The assertion of those advocating the viability argument is that a mother has a right to an abortion up until the point at which that child can survive with medical assistance outside of the womb. If viability is seen to be the benchmark and indicator of human worth, then human worth becomes subjective, predicated on a child’s ability to survive outside of the location that should be safest for them. It is an inconsistent valuing of human worth. Not only does it value more developed babies while disregarding lesser developed ones, it also essentially gifts premature babies who are able to access medical attention with humanity whilst disregarding those who cannot. Is a child born prematurely in Britain more valuable than one born in India where the medical equipment necessary for its survival is unavailable?
An argument that is often used by those in favour of the viability viewpoint is that outside of the womb there are other individuals, notably medical experts, who can assist the child, whilst in the womb the child is totally dependent on one individual; their mother. This is erroneous in a number of ways. Firstly, that child is dependent on more than just their mother for survival; medical staff, their father, and other key members of society play a key role in providing for and protecting both that child and their mother during her pregnancy. Many members of society are required to bring a baby to term including medical staff and members of the emergency services that would face legal consequences were they to deliberately neglect their duty to protect and safeguard both the woman and her child. It is a fallacy to assume that only the mother is crucial for the survival of her unborn child; a whole community is required to ensure its preservation. Secondly, even if that child is totally and completely dependent on their mother, it would still not excuse the direct intentional killing of that child. Imagine if a mother and her one month old baby are stranded on a desert island. There is enough food and drink on this island for both mother and child and other resources to cater to the needs of both. It will be roughly six months until they are rescued due to the isolation of the island but the mother knows she and her baby will be rescued at this 24 week stage. The baby is totally dependent on their mother for survival; they cannot feed or cater to their own needs and require the mother completely to care for them. It would be morally wrong in this situation for the mother, despite her being the sole carer for her child, to neglect her duties and the needs of her child; her child’s dependence, instead of being an excuse to abandon or even kill them instead instills in the mother a responsibility to cater to the needs of her vulnerable child. There is no meaningful difference between a mother carrying her child for the first six months of pregnancy and this situation requiring her to provide for her child for six months. The location of the child has changed; their inherent worth has not.
The counter argument to this point is that a human does not have the right to use another person’s body to survive. If we use the island example as mentioned above, in this scenario there is no way for the one month old child to survive without ‘using the mother’s body to survive’ i.e. through the provision and care of the mother. Yet it would still be morally wrong for the mother to not care and provide for her child in this scenario. Leaving the child to die would be a morally reprehensible act. In the same manner, simply because a child is dependent on the mother, abortion cannot be justified because of the child’s inability to care for themself or live with the assistance of medical technology outside of the womb.
The real crux of the viability argument is that it is morally permissible to kill those who are dependent on others for survival. If each and every human being has innate, intrinsic, objective worth their dependency and increased vulnerability, rather than being a reason for allowing them to be killed, should instead be the reason to provide for and protect them.
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1988.tb01743.x pg13
[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1988.tb01743.x pg13
