The Concept of Viability Is Not Really Viable
by Fr. Jim Hewes
YouTube has many videos in which “viability” is a major aspect of debates on abortion morality and legality. I have seen such videos as Lila Rose debating Dr. Mary Ann Frank, Trent Horn debating Professor Cecilia Charbaird, Kristan Hawkins presenting on college campuses, etc.
Why is this? For 50 years, the term “viability” was central to the Roe v. Wade decision. The Supreme Court used it to define the point at which a state’s interest in potential life becomes “compelling,” allowing for greater regulation or outright bans on abortion. Roe v. Wade established that states couldn’t ban abortions before this point. The Court defined viability as the point when a fetus “has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”.
Also, at least 11 states have laws that use the term “viability,” which effects millions of people.
A PBS article states that reproductive rights activists in Missouri wanted to get a ballot measure before voters in the fall of 2024 to roll back one of the strictest abortion bans in the country and ensure access. The sticking point was how far they should go. The groups have been at odds over whether to include a provision that would allow the state to regulate abortions after the fetus is viable, a concession supporters of the language say was needed to persuade voters in a conservative state.
It’s a divide that’s not limited to Missouri, because in closely divided states, some abortion advocates worry that failing to include limits related to viability will sink the measures. The Ohio state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the availability of abortion, passed in 2022, allowed for limits on abortion after viability (with exceptions).
With thousands of pre-born children killed near or after viability every year in the United States, and hundreds of thousands such abortions in the world each year according to the World Health Organization, this is worth considering.
The Shifting Line of Viability
When Roe v. Wade was decided over fifty years ago, it was rare for premature infants born before 28 weeks to survive. Medical technology has changed that. Today, babies born at 22-24 weeks’ gestation are surviving at increasing rates. Some are even surviving as early as 21 weeks.
The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study called “Survival Trends for Previable Births” (April 26, 2025) which documented treatment and survival rates for preemies born between 2014 and 2024. During the range of time studied, active treatment rates ranged from 28.8% to 78.6%. For 23-week infants, treatment rates were 87.4% to 94.7%, and 53.8% to 57.9% of those treated babies survived.
What does that say about the concept of “viability”? Does it really define whether a human life deserves protection?
Location Determines Viability?
Imagine if a pregnant woman in a city in the United States (such as Washington, Boston, or Philadelphia) that has top-tier neonatal intensive care units (NICU), her child, if born prematurely, would be considered viable. But if she travels to a remote or impoverished area without access to top-tier NICU care, that same child would no longer be viable. Has the child’s humanity changed? Clearly not.
This example shows how the concept of viability is a reflection of external circumstances, not the immeasurable value of the child. Viability concerns the ability to sustain life, not the inherent dignity of that life. The concept of viability reflects a human being’s relation to a certain environment at a certain point of development; it doesn’t change whether that life is human or not.
Medical Advancement Determines Viability?
Dr. Michael Harrison at the UCSF Fetal Treatment Center has temporarily removed pre-born children from their pregnant moms and done surgery on the pre-born child outside the womb, and then reinserted the child into the mother, to be born later perfectly heathy.
Has the humanity of the preborn changed during these past fifty years? No. Viability is technically a measure of the advancement of medical technology and the current availability of neonatal intensive care units. It measures the advancement of external life support systems, not the humanness of the premature infant.
It’s a reminder that medicine and science have come a long way – but also that medicine and science haven’t been perfected yet. The child remains in the mother’s womb up until at least 21 weeks because medical technology isn’t yet able to provide an alternative environment in which he or she can survive.
There are some researchers who predict that if an artificial womb and placenta are developed, as well as further development of the use of oxygen-saturated liquid (instead of air), pre-born infants could survive less than 21 weeks of gestation. By 12 weeks the preborn child’s whole system is developed and fully functioning. Viability isn’t a fixed or definitive line.
Dependency Doesn’t Justify Dehumanization
Defending pre-viability abortion on the basis that the child can’t survive if removed from the womb is logically inconsistent. The child can survive just fine if not removed from the womb until ready to exit it.
But one-day-old or one-year-old babies also can’t survive on their own. They’re no more viable than a pre-born baby; neither can survive alone. This could also be demonstrated with people who have severe disabilities or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are comatose, unconscious, under general anesthesia or suffer from advanced Alzheimer’s. Yet we don’t deny their humanity.
Dependency is a feature of human vulnerability—not a license to discard a life. Dependency doesn’t affect the status of whether someone is human or not. It reflects the fragile state of the human being’s situation, not their humanity.
Another major problem with viability is that it’s the abortionists who are the final authority in determining whether their intended victim is viable or not. If there was ever a clear example of letting the wolf guard the sheep, this is it.
Conclusion: A Human Life All Along
If viability were the standard, in-vitro fertilization wouldn’t be possible. The new human life created in this process would die immediately.
Once human conception takes place, nothing is added to this human life except nourishment and time to develop. The process of gestation is like a chain that naturally moves to the conclusion of birth, unless this process is interrupted at any point and the chain is broken.
Viability isn’t a moral measure. It’s a fluctuating, circumstantial, and often politically weaponized term. The concept of viability is utterly and completely arbitrary. The humanity of the pre-born doesn’t depend on geography, technology, or timing. It’s inherent. We don’t become human— we are human, from the very beginning.
=======================
Kate Cox and D&E Abortion
Kate Cox and Stories of Trisonomy 18
And the Topic page on our project website, Peace and Life Referendums:
This is an enlightening article by Rev. JIM HEWES. I especially noticed
“Location Determines Viability ” as planned parenthood is most active in areas of cities most populated by women having few financial resources to support needs of a child and no support of the child’s father.
Therefore the baby is seen as NOT VIABLE and abortion becomes the recommended action.