“Capable of living.” That is the extent of the first definition of the term viable according to Merriam-Webster. It can be applied to practically any kind of organism, from the tiniest phytoplankton in the sea to a baby elephant about to be born.
But does it apply to every living thing at every moment? No.
Some things by some defect are not viable and therefore will not survive to be everything they might otherwise be. Is it absolute that a viable something or someone is capable of living anywhere at any time? No. A suitable environment for life, in whatever stage it is in, is assumed by the definition. In fact, that assumption is essential to the definition, for without it the term would make no sense.
That is the meaning intended and accepted by practically everyone in nearly every context in which the term viable is used with regard to a living organism, with one major exception — abortion. In that context, an entirely different definition for the term has come to be used, which is whether an unborn child has reached a level of development that would allow them to live outside the womb.
The question for pro-lifers — and ultimately everyone — is how much credence should this definition be given? To answer this, consider how these definitions differ.
With the first definition, if a living thing is not viable, it means that it has some defect — that it is less than it ought to be. But an unborn child who would be considered not viable according to the second definition is likely perfectly healthy and capable of anything that could be expected of a human being at that stage of their life.
Another big difference between the definitions is that while the first definition assumes a suitable environment for life, the second explicitly excludes that condition for very young children, by forcing them to be able to survive in an environment that no one at their stage of development could survive in, in order to prove their viability. In other words, they are essentially being told, “We don’t consider you viable because you cannot survive in ‘X’ environment,” never mind the fact that no one like them at their stage in life would ever normally be found in such an environment.
Using the same logic, it could be said that an adult is not viable because they could not survive at the top of Mt. Everest or at the bottom of the ocean. Would anyone agree to take away an adult’s most fundamental rights just because they cannot prove they could survive in such extraordinary situations? Of course not. Yet that is exactly what is being done to many unborn children.
This term that normally conveys a powerful and widely accepted meaning has been hijacked by those with an ulterior motive, who borrow its power but substitute a definition that makes the term almost an antonym of its original meaning by excising a key element of that meaning. That is more than disingenuous. It is a travesty of language.
There are those who would retort, “That’s just semantics,” which is a way of dismissing an argument they do not want to address rather than an actual argument itself. The fact is, many of the gains made by those who are pro-abortion have been possible because they controlled — and often warped — the language. In order to reverse those gains, pro-lifers must reclaim the language and thereby expose their true motives by forcing them to explain what they mean in plain terms.
Some might ask whether these concerns are rather esoteric. That concern, however, was answered just last year when Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody wondered in a widely reported court case challenging that state’s ultimately failed ballot proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution whether people would interpret “viability” in the proposal according to its more common and universal meaning rather than the special meaning usually used in the context of abortion.
So, what should we do?
First, we should never use the specious definition that unfairly discounts the worth of an unborn child’s life, which includes letting it become enshrined in a statute, court decision, or state or federal constitution unchallenged.
Second, if there is a need to refer to that definition, we should put the term in quotes, such as “viable” and “viability,” to signal that we find it a foreign and unacceptable meaning for the term, rather than one we ourselves endorse.
Third, we should make a point to use the word with its universal meaning in the context of abortion, such as in, “Abortion takes the life of a complete, distinct, living, viable, and fully human being.”
Finally, we should recognize how slim the gap that “viability” arguments turn on really is. All humans require an environment that provides adequate oxygen and rather narrow bands of pressure and temperature — in other words, an environment that is pretty special. In some stages of life or states of health, humans may need an environment that is just a little more special than that needed by the average person in order to survive.
It is the height of arrogance to suggest that such a relatively small change in what one requires to continue living should cost them their most fundamental right, especially when it is all part of a normal and natural progression such as takes place during pregnancy.