"I support a woman's right to choose up until viability of the fetus."--Libertarian presidential candidate Gary JohnsonGary Johnson isn't the first politician to make such a claim, nor will he be the last. But what does this mean?
First, let's look at the definition for "viability":
Dictionary.com: 1. ability to live, especially under certain conditions:What defines the "circumstances"? Medical technology. We can argue legal definitions, but even a fetus born at 22 weeks has up to a 10% chance of survival. That may not sound like a lot, but the "ability to live" is the prime part of the viability definition. To me, even a small percentage viability is still viable.
The viability of a fetus outside the womb has increased dramatically with the advent of new technologies and procedures.
But even if we agree there should be no abortion after a fetus becomes even barely viable, viability isn't a static definition. It is medical technology that defines viability. Would a 22 week old fetus have a 10% chance of survival 200 years ago? 100 years ago? Of course not.
And what do you think the minimum viable age of a fetus will be in 100 years? 200 years? I predict there will come a time when women will no longer have to carry babies. After fertilization, medical technology will allow for easy removal of the baby from the womb to an advanced incubator, where the baby will stay safely for 9 months. In other words, "viability" will be at conception.
Wait! If viability "will be" at conception, why isn't it at conception now? Because we define the world as we see it, ignoring how we have grown from the past, and without assuming future potential.
Sadly, it is our own human failings that will lead to millions of needless fetal deaths, otherwise known as abortions. Because we don't learn from our past, and never consider any potential improvement in our future condition, we treat our fetal children with no more respect than we would excrement.
I call on Gary Johnson, and all other candidates with reasonable views on abortion (Hillary Clinton is a lost cause in this regard), to upgrade their views to what we CAN achieve with medical technology, and not merely where we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment