Forums

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Because, after birth, if society states that this life has to be supported (fed, whatever), it can appoint (or pay) any of a number of individuals to do it. While still in utero, society has to force one specific individual, involuntarily, to support it, and that individual has independent rights. (Some people would be OK with the gov't dropping of an infant on their door and saying "guess what, he's your own personal problem now, if you don't take good care of him we'll prosecute," but not many I'd wager.) If the fetus could be removed and supported independently from the mother, then the a fetus being "supported" in utero and being "supported" after birth would be analogous. (That's what makes viability an attractive alternative, though, in theory, that would mean women would have a right, at any time, to say "OK, let's induce and let the thing survive on its own if it can.")

If I understand what you are saying correctly, it seems that there is some magical point on the continuum where the balance of rights changes and we call this point "viability," but it really does not have a direct correlation with whether or not the fetus could survive outside the mother. Right? Because if it did, wouldn't it have to be different for each fetus? Presumably there are some that could survive after week 11, and others not until week 16, but for social convenience we have picked the average.