Uploaded January 2020 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Is it ok to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is not viable on its own?
To read this in article form, please see benhammond.org/is-abortion-wrong
Link to video 1: Is Abortion Wrong?
youtu.be/ED-vKZNwGZo
Link to video 3: It is Wrong to Terminate an Innocent Human Life
youtu.be/I_6m34QkN30
Is it ok to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is not viable on its own? That’s an argument we often hear in support of abortion, so we need to talk about it.
Remember, in the last video we started looking at a syllogism:
1. Abortion terminates an innocent human life.
2. It is wrong to terminate an innocent human life.
3. Abortion is wrong
We considered premise number 1 and determined that abortion does terminate an innocent human life. But before we move to premise two, we need to answer the argument of viability.
I accept that an unborn baby probably could not survive on its own in the first several months of pregnancy. But does that mean it’s ok to ends its life?
If you think about it, that argument doesn’t make sense. No, the baby couldn’t survive on its own, but what is it that makes a person able to survive on their own? There are three things that make it possible for any person to survive on their own, and I think we’ll find that unborn babies are not the only nonviable people.
Three things are needed for viability: The ability to determine need, the ability to meet the need, and the availability of the means to meet the need.
First, the ability to determine our needs
If you’re going to survive, you have to understand that you have needs. Even after birth, a baby can’t do this. Put a naked 5-year-old alone on the street and it probably won’t survive, either.
Of course, this also leads to the subject of the mentally handicapped and people with dementia. If you’re ever around someone who is about to die, they usually stop eating. They lose mental capacity to understand their need for food. An elderly dementia patient may walk out into the blizzard without a coat and freeze to death. They can’t survive on their own—are we supposed to kill them, too?
So, there are many people that can’t survive on their own because they don’t have the ability to understand their needs. Just because an unborn baby is in the same situation doesn’t mean we are justified in killing them.
So, first, we need the ability to determine our needs.
Second, we need the ability to meet our needs
If I were to wake up one morning alone and paralyzed, I would mentally understand my needs, but I wouldn’t be able to go to the kitchen to get something to eat, and if I laid there long enough, I would eventually die. My mind would know what I need, but physically, I wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. No one in their right mind would claim that I wasn’t a person, but I wasn’t able to survive on my own.
The third thing that we need to be viable is the availability of the means to meet the need.
If a person was lost in the desert with no food or water, they would eventually die. They would know their needs and have the ability to meet them, but what they need is not available. We wouldn’t say they’re not a person. When we found their scorched bones lying out in the heat, it would make the headlines. A person died of thirst.
So, a baby in the womb isn’t viable, but neither are people at many other stages of life. When we call the baby a “fetus,” somehow we think that distinguishes it from being human. But we don’t think that when we call a person a “toddler,” or “teenager,” or a “senior citizen.” It’s just a stage of life. But it’s still a person.
Let’s recap: we need three things to be viable.
1. The ability to determine our needs
2. The ability to meet our needs
3. The availability of the means to meet our needs
An unborn baby, of course, is nonviable, but neither are many other people at all different stages of life. If we’re gonna be so fixated on discrimination, let’s talk about discriminating against a person simply because of their location, which in this case, is in what should be the protective of the mother’s body.
So, we’ve looked at our first premise: abortion terminates an innocent human life, and we know that even a nonviable fetus is an innocent human life. In the next video, we will look at the second premise: it is wrong to terminate an innocent human life.
youtube.com/channel/UCW3e7xQd0mThCLvu2QIVSxw?sub_confirmation=1
Is it ok to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is not viable on its own?
To read this in article form, please see benhammond.org/is-abortion-wrong
Link to video 1: Is Abortion Wrong?
youtu.be/ED-vKZNwGZo
Link to video 3: It is Wrong to Terminate an Innocent Human Life
youtu.be/I_6m34QkN30
Is it ok to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is not viable on its own? That’s an argument we often hear in support of abortion, so we need to talk about it.
Remember, in the last video we started looking at a syllogism:
1. Abortion terminates an innocent human life.
2. It is wrong to terminate an innocent human life.
3. Abortion is wrong
We considered premise number 1 and determined that abortion does terminate an innocent human life. But before we move to premise two, we need to answer the argument of viability.
I accept that an unborn baby probably could not survive on its own in the first several months of pregnancy. But does that mean it’s ok to ends its life?
If you think about it, that argument doesn’t make sense. No, the baby couldn’t survive on its own, but what is it that makes a person able to survive on their own? There are three things that make it possible for any person to survive on their own, and I think we’ll find that unborn babies are not the only nonviable people.
Three things are needed for viability: The ability to determine need, the ability to meet the need, and the availability of the means to meet the need.
First, the ability to determine our needs
If you’re going to survive, you have to understand that you have needs. Even after birth, a baby can’t do this. Put a naked 5-year-old alone on the street and it probably won’t survive, either.
Of course, this also leads to the subject of the mentally handicapped and people with dementia. If you’re ever around someone who is about to die, they usually stop eating. They lose mental capacity to understand their need for food. An elderly dementia patient may walk out into the blizzard without a coat and freeze to death. They can’t survive on their own—are we supposed to kill them, too?
So, there are many people that can’t survive on their own because they don’t have the ability to understand their needs. Just because an unborn baby is in the same situation doesn’t mean we are justified in killing them.
So, first, we need the ability to determine our needs.
Second, we need the ability to meet our needs
If I were to wake up one morning alone and paralyzed, I would mentally understand my needs, but I wouldn’t be able to go to the kitchen to get something to eat, and if I laid there long enough, I would eventually die. My mind would know what I need, but physically, I wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. No one in their right mind would claim that I wasn’t a person, but I wasn’t able to survive on my own.
The third thing that we need to be viable is the availability of the means to meet the need.
If a person was lost in the desert with no food or water, they would eventually die. They would know their needs and have the ability to meet them, but what they need is not available. We wouldn’t say they’re not a person. When we found their scorched bones lying out in the heat, it would make the headlines. A person died of thirst.
So, a baby in the womb isn’t viable, but neither are people at many other stages of life. When we call the baby a “fetus,” somehow we think that distinguishes it from being human. But we don’t think that when we call a person a “toddler,” or “teenager,” or a “senior citizen.” It’s just a stage of life. But it’s still a person.
Let’s recap: we need three things to be viable.
1. The ability to determine our needs
2. The ability to meet our needs
3. The availability of the means to meet our needs
An unborn baby, of course, is nonviable, but neither are many other people at all different stages of life. If we’re gonna be so fixated on discrimination, let’s talk about discriminating against a person simply because of their location, which in this case, is in what should be the protective of the mother’s body.
So, we’ve looked at our first premise: abortion terminates an innocent human life, and we know that even a nonviable fetus is an innocent human life. In the next video, we will look at the second premise: it is wrong to terminate an innocent human life.
youtube.com/channel/UCW3e7xQd0mThCLvu2QIVSxw?sub_confirmation=1
