What's viability got to do with it?

Most people (I hope) are agreed that reason and logic are the organising principles for modern society and its laws. It certainly seems that way, for in lobbying for change to laws - or new laws - proponents put forward various arguments supporting their positions.

If they didn't believe that reason and logic were important, they would just say: "This is what I want to do. Whether it is logical and reasonable or not, this is what I feel to do. Argument done!"

But, thankfully, at least there is the pretence at reason and logic, which is why I take the time to show how and where some arguments put forward by special-interest groups are unreasonable and illogical. I say 'pretence', for rarely when arguments are rebutted is there any effort to engage in logical dialogue; the protagonists simply restate their positions with increasing decibels as if no rebuttal had been made.

The fact is that not everyone organises himself/herself based on reason and logic. For some, the most basic principle is self-interest - what is best for me and my welfare and my profit. And so environmentalists can put forward reasoned and logical arguments about sustainable development and the health of the planet until they are blue in the face; these will make no difference to business interests (and the politicians in their pockets) seeking to make as much profit as possible at the expense of the natural environment.

What is right and good is what is right and good for ME right now; this fundamentally selfish approach to life lacks perspective and holism - an appreciation of the big picture, of how things all fit together. A concern for reason and logic - thinking things through to their logical conclusion - will produce a better world. But then, many people don't care about the world; they only care about themselves.

The public debate about abortion is good; every generation needs to think it through, and not simply be satisfied with the conclusions of previous generations. There are very few new arguments; they have all been aired before; and all have rational and logical responses, if only people would listen.

The first argument put forward by the pro-abortionists is that a woman must have the right to choose what happens to her own body. The anti-abortionists reply that the foetus growing within her womb is not her own body, but the body of a separate human being, with a different nervous system, blood system and often a different blood type. It is hard to refute that.

So the next argument put forward by the pro-abortionists is that the foetus growing within the womb is not really a separate human being because it would cease to live if it were separated from the womb. They argue that the foetus only has the right to life when it has developed to the point where it is viable outside the womb.

Viability as justification

Some medical scientists have declared that the foetus is only viable after the 28th week of pregnancy, and this is used in some jurisdictions to justify making legal those abortions which take place when the foetus is less than 28 weeks old. This brand of pro-abortionist has decided that viability is the determining criterion for deciding whether a human foetus has the right to life or not. This cannot stand up to logical and rational scrutiny.

First of all, why is viability important as a criterion to decide whether a foetus - a human being - lives or dies? What is the basis for the assertion that if the foetus could not survive outside the womb, it does not deserve to live at all?

Once a baby is born - even after nine months in the womb - it cannot survive on its own; it is going to need parental support for many years. Should infanticide be made legal? Especially infants who may grow up to be criminals and a burden on the State?

Many old people and sick people cannot survive on their own, and need constant attention. Since they are not viable, do they have the right to life? If we take this viability argument to its logical extreme, only the healthy and strong will have the right to life.

At the moment, our Constitution guarantees every human being the right to life. This includes human beings that some would consider 'inconvenient', like old people and sick people, and unwanted pregnancies from casual and promiscuous sex and from rape. The right to life cannot be cancelled because that human being is inconvenient.

Viability has absolutely no role in determining whether a human being has a right to life or not.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.