Abortion debate: Let’s consider ‘viability’


Viability. This is the ground on which many who oppose the Supreme Court`s recent ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe stand. The argument is that the previous court used a reasoned argument to define a “right” to an abortion in the USA. Safe, Legal, And Rare was the sales pitch. How times have changed, but the change is no surprise to those who understand the gravity of a court affirming a clearly inhuman act.

What, exactly is meant by viability? Is any baby viable without a mother feeding him for his first years? Clearly, a baby left to its own devices is not viable. But, I understand how those who support abortion use the word.

What they mean is that a fetus who cannot even breath outside of the womb is not viable. Even by this definition, medical technology has made significant progress in the last five decades so that definition is fluid.

The larger point however is, what would happen to most fetuses not currently viable if left to nature? The answer is that they will reach viability as long as they are not killed. So, this argument is at its core, let’s kill it before it grows.

The abortion industry and their media mouthpieces don’t want you to know that a large percentage of women who end up getting an abortion do so under significant peer pressure and against their own moral conscience. They are frightened and the immediate answer is abortion. To not do so they are told, will negatively impact their future to the extreme.

No discussion of options like adoption. They even shroud the truth saying that this is all about bodily autonomy for women, except, of course the one being killed is not the woman but rather her (and his) child. We all know this.

The right to life is an unalienable one. Such rights are not granted by any government. Governments only impose on such rights and Roe was such an imposition. And laws do modify people’s actions. Too many of us carry a guilt for actions taken that, while legal were still immoral, and we know it.

We need to stop telling our young women (and men) that an action taken in panic that costs the life of her son or daughter, is in fact noble or righteous. We should not be condemning them to thoughts of what might have been, some 10, 20, 40 years later.

The pressure on unmarried women and even married ones to consider their material future when faced with an unplanned pregnancy was and is real. Only a truly sick, materialistic society would place future monetary prospects above the lives of their own children, but that has been us.

Hopefully, today we are re-evaluating what is truly valuable so that our children and grandchildren don’t approach their end with the greatest regret.

Love is always viable.

Alan Felts

Peachtree City, Ga.