a note on viability
much is sometimes made about the issue of 'viability' in talking about abortion. for example, both the roe and casey decisions by the supreme court make reference to the notion of 'viability.' and many people seem to feel that if a developing human being cannot survive outside the womb, then abortion is permissible.
when saying that something in the womb is not viable, many people seem to have in something like this: there is something in the womb that is alive, and if we were to take it out of the womb and hold it in our hands, or put it on a table, it would die very quickly.
in general, viability seems to involve the idea that a living thing is able to sustain its own life, given the proper context. a healty, adult human being would seem to be a paradigm of viability. but such an animal can survive only given the proper environment -a human being is not 'viable' on the surface of the moon wearing only a t-shirt and shorts. likewise, a one-week old baby is not able to sustain its own life if left on a table to fend for itself. on the other hand, some adult human beings are unable to sustain their own lives without the aid of various medicines or complex equipment, such as ventilators.
because human beings go through various stages of development, the specific things required for them to survive change over time. typically, a human baby at 6 weeks is dependent on others to a greater degree than a human at 6 years, and in that sense we might even say that a human baby at 6 weeks is 'less viable' -that is, less able to keep itself alive on its own. at the same time, a healthy human baby at 6 weeks is perfectly able to keep itself going, given the proper environment, and in that sense is fully viable.
what, then, about a developing human being at 8 weeks in utero? what is the proper environment for a developing human at this stage? surely, the proper environment is a healthy womb. and, given a healthy womb, a healthy human at 8 weeks gestation is perfectly capable of sustaining its own life. this is not to deny, of course, that at 8 weeks in the womb a developing human is incredibly dependent -in particular it is dependent on its mother (although, dependent in a secondary sense on many other people -doctors and nurses, as well as the people on whom the mother is dependent for her survival). the point, however, is that at 8 weeks gestation, a devoloping human may be dependent in a unique way on something outside itself, but it is not unique in being dependent on something outside itself.
my aim here is not to suggest that there is somethign non-sensical or unintelligible about the notion of 'viability' typically invoking in discussions of abortion. rather, i want to ask: why should that notion matter very much in helping us to determine our response to developing human beings prior to birth? of course, there may be good reasons for thinking that such a notion of viability is important for guiding our response to such humans, but i can't as yet see how this could be.
when saying that something in the womb is not viable, many people seem to have in something like this: there is something in the womb that is alive, and if we were to take it out of the womb and hold it in our hands, or put it on a table, it would die very quickly.
in general, viability seems to involve the idea that a living thing is able to sustain its own life, given the proper context. a healty, adult human being would seem to be a paradigm of viability. but such an animal can survive only given the proper environment -a human being is not 'viable' on the surface of the moon wearing only a t-shirt and shorts. likewise, a one-week old baby is not able to sustain its own life if left on a table to fend for itself. on the other hand, some adult human beings are unable to sustain their own lives without the aid of various medicines or complex equipment, such as ventilators.
because human beings go through various stages of development, the specific things required for them to survive change over time. typically, a human baby at 6 weeks is dependent on others to a greater degree than a human at 6 years, and in that sense we might even say that a human baby at 6 weeks is 'less viable' -that is, less able to keep itself alive on its own. at the same time, a healthy human baby at 6 weeks is perfectly able to keep itself going, given the proper environment, and in that sense is fully viable.
what, then, about a developing human being at 8 weeks in utero? what is the proper environment for a developing human at this stage? surely, the proper environment is a healthy womb. and, given a healthy womb, a healthy human at 8 weeks gestation is perfectly capable of sustaining its own life. this is not to deny, of course, that at 8 weeks in the womb a developing human is incredibly dependent -in particular it is dependent on its mother (although, dependent in a secondary sense on many other people -doctors and nurses, as well as the people on whom the mother is dependent for her survival). the point, however, is that at 8 weeks gestation, a devoloping human may be dependent in a unique way on something outside itself, but it is not unique in being dependent on something outside itself.
my aim here is not to suggest that there is somethign non-sensical or unintelligible about the notion of 'viability' typically invoking in discussions of abortion. rather, i want to ask: why should that notion matter very much in helping us to determine our response to developing human beings prior to birth? of course, there may be good reasons for thinking that such a notion of viability is important for guiding our response to such humans, but i can't as yet see how this could be.
posted by micah at 7:40 PM
2 Comments:
Here is one argument for thinking that viability is important: At no point during her pregancy should a woman be *forced* to carry a child. If the fetus is not viable and the woman chooses to end her pregnancy, the only option is to have an abortion. If the fetus is viable and the woman chooses to end her pregnancy, it could be removed and given to someone else to care for. Women who are too far along to have an abortion should be allowed to induce labor or to have the child otherwise removed to prevent them from being compelled to carry an unwanted child.
Anonymous,
I'm not sure your argument is anywhere near as satisfactory as you think it is. It really doesn't get at Micah's point at all. Micah's point is that for the word "viable" to mean anything important or helpful with regard to these considerations will require some specification of a context within which the fetus/developing human being is or is not viable. It doesn't say anything helpful to say that something is viable without going on to specify the circumstances with respect to which the thing is or is not viable.
Apparently, you think the framework that counts for evaluating viability is a "fetus' ability to be removed from the womb and given to someone else to care for." And I suppose more particularly what you have in mind is "able to survive outside the womb of the mother in the open air or in a PICU or given current medical technology." (But this you don't specify.)
Consider for a moment the possibility (one that doesn't seem at all hard to imagine) of a fetus that couldn't survive in any of the places you have in mind being removed from the mother's womb and placed in an artificial womb or even in the womb of some generous specially prepared volunteer woman. There, the fetus is completely viable and continues to develop. In principle the fetus could be removed from its mother's womb at the moment of conception and put in another womb and is thus "viable" at just that moment, and as viable then as at any point later. In any such instance, the fetus is "viable" in just that way and in just those conditions in which a fetus is suited to be viable. In fact, in-vitro fertilization just is an instance of these processes--only the fetus begins in an artificial womb and ends up in a non-artificial womb--and is viable in both those places.
So, your argument really doesn't say much except that you think the relevant criteria for viability is "able to survive outside the mother's womb," but I've shown why this is pretty empty. Let's pretend you were more precise and said "able to survive outside the womb given the highest level of medical care and technology."
Still, why should this be the peculiar understanding of viability that's relevant? This is just your arbitrary assertion of a certain sort of viability. Indeed, in your usage "viability" is just a short-hand way of drawing a line between when, given today's technology, a pregnancy can only be terminated by killing the fetus and when it can be ended in some other way.
The problem with using the word "viability" for the highly contingent distinction you want to draw is that it might create the illusion that we are actually doing something other than just drawing that line. It might create the illusion that our drawing of that line actually tells us something important about the nature or identity of the fetus--something about the sort of creature it is. Instead, all it does is pick out the point at which the mother who wants to end her pregnancy immediately can do so in some way other than killing what it is that is in her womb. This use of "viability" tells us at least as much about our purposes and intentions as it does about anything else--only it makes it all too easy for us to think it's telling us something else.
Post a Comment
<< Home