Blankley: Homosexuals and Feminists En Route to Rendering Roe v. Wade Irrelevant
Check out this interesting column by Tony Blankley, arguing that the definition of 'viability' used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), namely "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," is poised to be undermined by the very same artificial womb technology championed by homosexuals and feminists to avoid natural pregnancy. Id. at 160.
Two separate advances in this technology, on two different projects, are described by Blankley.
Recently, I had a discussion with some coworkers where we revisited a debate we had on abortion. One interlocutor this time suggested the viability defense. I see Blankley reminds us, as did my discussion, that this defense of abortion is still suggested despite what I believe should be obvious shortcomings.
The viability defense seems to ignore the fluidity of viability. The viability of a fetus determines whether she is a person, entitled to all the rights and privileges of persons, namely the right to life. So, until a fetus is viable, that is capable of surviving outside of a mother's womb, there is no morally significant reason to consider it a person, and thus protect her life, so the argument goes. But really, I'm not sure that's how the argument goes. I'm unsure whether the defense suggests the fetus be able to 'live' outside of a mother's womb or whether the fetus be capable of 'surviving' outside of a mother's womb. The difference is in whether the child be capable or merely maintaining its own life without any assistance or whether it is capable of merely staying alive, but with assistance, outside of a mother's womb.
In any case, while this additional uncertainty is worth exploring, my point here was to point out that viability is contingent upon the availability of technology. So, viability may easily vary because of medical technology's availability or unavailability. Since the viability of fetuses in less technologically adept locations will come later, it follows that those fetus's personhood will too. Personhood then, rests on the availability of medical technology. This seems like a horribly imprecise way to define the human person, let alone hinge a right to life.
(HT Fumare)
