Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Myths
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
      • Abortion Views and Gender
    • Collections
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Becoming Pro-Life
    • Publications
      • Overview Brochure
      • Why Secular People Should Care
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Why support SPL?
  • Donate
  • Menu Menu

Viability = Personhood?

August 15, 2012/15 Comments/in Personhood, Uncategorized /by Monica Snyder
In the never-ending debates over what it means to be a “person” (as distinct from a human being) I’ve seen many people claim that you cannot be a person unless you are viable, i.e. a fetus is not a person until the fetus can live outside the mother’s body.

The first counterargument I usually hear (or give) is that patients on respirators or people using dialysis or the like are not somehow less of people–they don’t lose personhood due to their physical dependence.

Additionally, “personhood” should be an intrinsic property of a human, shouldn’t it?  It doesn’t make sense–and sounds a bit eerie–to suggest that your personhood depends on factors aside from you.  But viability is that type of quality.  The Department of Perinatology and Gynecology at the University School of Medical Sciences in Poznan, Poland explained it this way:

Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors.

In other words, a fetus gestating in the United States, whose mother has access to advanced medical technologies, may be able to survive outside the womb at an earlier gestational age than if the exact same fetus were gestating in Rwanda.  If personhood depends on viability, the fetus is a person while in the US, and ceases to be a person if the mother travels to Rwanda.  ….This makes no sense.  No definition of personhood should boil down to geographic location.

Related Posts

Tags: biology, fetal development, M, personhood
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
  • Link to Instagram
https://i0.wp.com/secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/viabilitylawbystate.jpg?fit=400%2C367&ssl=1 367 400 Monica Snyder https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Monica Snyder2012-08-15 12:02:002021-11-23 18:56:39Viability = Personhood?
You might also like
Sources for SPL’s “The case against abortion” presentation
Even third trimester abortions are done for non-medical reasons.
Media acknowledges “artificial life.” Why not unborn life?
Rape & Pregnancy 101
Your answers to the difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion.”
The ABC Link
Gonzales v. Carhart: What can you see?
“Talking about my abortion.”
15 replies
  1. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:
    August 15, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    You guys are so compassionate about life that you're willing to force women to give birth to something when they don't want to. Obviously that shouldn't have been sleeping around and now they have to PAY FOR IT! Enjoy your new baby.

    Log in to Reply
    • xalisae
      xalisae says:
      August 17, 2012 at 8:26 pm

      "…to give birth to something…"

      We don't give birth to things. We birth PEOPLE. We are talking about SOMEONE. And that's the only reason we need to oppose abortion. We don't want to punish anyone. Children are not a punishment.

      Log in to Reply
  2. Dana white
    Dana white says:
    August 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Ever heard of birth contol or adoption, troll? Murder is not the answer.

    Log in to Reply
    • Dashondra
      Dashondra says:
      August 16, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      That's right Dana. For pro-lifers, the first thought is the woman should consider adoption, as there are hundreds of thousands of childless, loving couples looking to adopt a baby.

      For a pro-aborsh person, the first thought to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is murdering the child in the womb.

      HOW DARE THE CHILD BE THERE? THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY WITH AN ARM AND A LEG! (literally)

      Log in to Reply
  3. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:
    August 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    You care so much about life that you support Paul Ryan, who wants to cut domestic programs designed to help the most vulnerable populations by 60%. Go ahead and vote for Republicans, as you think you're saving people's lives when you're really just voting for ruining them.

    Log in to Reply
  4. Raina Sterne
    Raina Sterne says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    It's all the republicans fault. Typical liberal blame game vast generalization and unrelated to the topic.
    Love the trolls!

    Log in to Reply
  5. Simon
    Simon says:
    August 17, 2012 at 1:14 am

    I had a correspondence with a Pro-Choicer who took the viability stance where she only had the right to evict not kill but it was due to nature that the early foetus died while a late term could survive. What I couldn't work out is you still need to override a woman's bodily autonomy to force her to either go to term or to induce labor if sh wanted to evict late in the pregnancy. But if you have a right to evict but not kill that equally applies to the early foetus. But this is only part of the larger problem when considering bodily compensation.

    Log in to Reply
  6. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:
    August 17, 2012 at 7:11 am

    "Additionally, "personhood" should be an intrinsic property of a human, shouldn't it?"

    No.

    Log in to Reply
    • M
      M says:
      August 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      Did you have any elaboration, or is this more of a "nuh-uh!" type stance?

      Log in to Reply
    • Anonymous
      Anonymous says:
      August 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

      Your argument has convinced me. I will now renounce all my pro-life ways and sell myself into slavery to Planned Parenthood

      Log in to Reply
  7. Jimbob Thorton
    Jimbob Thorton says:
    August 17, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Okay mr anonymous, HOW CAN YOU HAVE HUMAN DNA AND NOT BE A PERSON!? It's scientific fact that if you have human dna, you have the same legal status as a completely born, aware, and rational person. The law makes no distinction between mental capacity, maturity, and humanity. If you have human dna, you are entitled to human rights. It's all there black and white clear as crystal. This is why abortion needs to be made illegal. Not only is it immoral from a christian standpoint but it violates international human rights laws. You could only be against abortion being made illegal if you support child murder and sexual promiscuity.

    Log in to Reply
    • Simon
      Simon says:
      August 24, 2012 at 4:45 am

      Actually the debate concerning our ontology isn't so clear cut. Read up on the Personal Identity debate, there are plenty of good introductory articles if you google Personal Identity and philosophy.

      Log in to Reply
  8. Eion McMillien
    Eion McMillien says:
    August 17, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Jimbob, it's a waste of time to try to teach a dog to whistle (I've tried). It's a waste of time to teach a fish to dance the polka (haven't tried).

    And it's a waste of time to argue or reason with trolls. They are pro-abort no matter what and nothing will ever change their minds.

    I suggest you spend your precious time on something more productive 🙂

    Log in to Reply
  9. 156
    156 says:
    September 14, 2012 at 4:19 am

    With regard to the graphic, please note that the laws against abortion after a certain number of weeks of gestation are inconsistent with Roe v. Wade. See the Planned Parenthood v. Danforth decision.

    "…[I]t is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place
    viability, which essentially is a medical concept, at a specific point
    in the gestation period."

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=52

    Log in to Reply
  10. Paul Backus
    Paul Backus says:
    September 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    I am a pro-choice person. However, I do not think abortion is a good thing, and admit that it is very difficult to defend abortion as a practice in itself. However, the one thing that overrides all points in this debate is that we tried banning abortions. It didn't stop abortions from happening. Thousands of people still tried to abort, they just did it in dirty, backalley offices; or with coat hangers (remember those?); or a myriad of other "methods" that were dangerous to both the child and mother. Roe v Wade happened for a reason, because we had so many women dying trying to abort.

    Making something illegal doesn't stop people from trying to get it. If you really want to stop/reduce abortions, the way to do it is through education and public outreach, not an outright legal ban.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Administrative
  • Adoption and Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • en español
  • Late-Term Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, and court cases
  • Medication Abortion
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • SPL Emails
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Your Stories

Archive

As the national conversation on abortion intensifies, it’s more important than ever that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Please donate today.

DONATE
© Copyright 2023 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

Gosnell Updates Shooting at ProLife Office in D.C.
Scroll to top