4

Equally as indistinct is the idea that a fetus' right to life takes precedence from the time it is "viable." Right now, that depends primarily upon the ability of the fetus to breathe. Before twenty-four weeks of age, the lungs are simply not developed, and no matter how advanced an artificial lung it might be placed in, the fetus will not be able to breathe. ¹² Furthermore, viability varies from case to case, according to individual rates of development. "One fetus might be viable at twenty-four weeks, another not until twenty-eight or thirty weeks, no matter how good its care.  ¹³ And since medical facilities inevitably vary with locale:

Many unborn children who are 'viable' on any given day in a major metropolitan center would not be viable in a more rural setting. If ... personhood were pegged to the quality of medical technology in a given state, it would lead to the absurd result of the same unborn child being a 'person' in some states, but not in others. Such an unborn child would then periodically gain, lose, and regain ... 'personhood' whenever his or her mother traveled across state boundaries. ¹⁴

Only a few decades ago, before the advent of incubators, a seven-month fetus would not have survived outside the womb. Therefore, by the viability standard, an abortion in the seventh month would have been permissible. So upon the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus that is only four months old? Does it then instantly become immoral to abort at the fourth month, when previously it was moral? Obviously, "a morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality." ¹⁹

next