Medical Viability and Deceptive Propaganda
Blog Series #7 Modern Science a.k.a. COMMON SENSE part 2b
With modern scientific advancements in Neonatal Intensive Care technology, terms such as ‘medical viability,’ ‘peri-viability,’ and ‘limit of viability’ are emerging in discussions around the legal framework for aborting fetuses. If you would like clarification on these terms (and believe me, we all need clarification here), I’ll refer you back to that helpful Wikipedia page titled ‘Fetal Viability.’
[TRIGGER WARNING: I have included an image of an extremely premature fetus sustained on an artificial life-support system at the end of this post.]
Here is why it is important for me to post a two-part blog about these new developments in neonatal technology and it’s confusing terminology:
Politicians and lawmakers try to convince voters that a fetus is ‘viable’ after 22 weeks’ (5 months’) gestation so that they can accuse women of ‘murdering babies’ when they abort fetuses at any point in a pregnancy. As I mentioned in part 2a of this series, there are many definitions for and variations of the word ‘viable.’ They can become easily muddled. Anyone trying to create anti-abortion propaganda will capitalize on this confusion over definitions. That is why it is important to clarify whether a politician is referring to the natural ‘biological viability’ of the fetus in a human womb, or a ‘medical viability’ possible only with artificial technological support.
Whenever these terms are used with no context (or the context is deliberately omitted), politicians know the average citizen hears ‘viable’ and interprets it as ‘survived’ or ‘alive,’ ignores any reference to length of gestation in the womb, and assumes the politician is referring to a fetus’ natural transition from the womb to breathing air with lungs through nostrils. This is where people confuse the different types of ‘viability’ and think a fetus born ‘medically viable’ after 5 months’ gestation has ‘survived,’ and is ‘alive,’ breathing air with lungs, and therefore can be murdered. I found a good example of this omission and assumption in the abstract for an article in the National Library of Medicine titled ‘The limits of viability of extremely preterm infants.’ One has to read past the abstract further down the page to finally find any mention of a neonatal intensive care unit — an artificial life-support system — as the means to ‘resuscitate an extremely preterm infant.’ Up to that point, the lay reader with no medical background is left to assume a fetus this under-developed is actually alive and breathing air with its own lungs. This article eventually redeems itself and introduces yet another variation of ‘viable’ by defining the term ‘peri-viable’ for me (under the ‘Ethical Deliberations’ section). The definition is how this article came into my research in the first place.
You too can find examples like the abstract for the article cited above — far too easily. It is vital that we remain diligent and discerning. Engage your critical thinking skills when listening to or reading anything about abortion and viability. Recognize that at the time of this posting October 26, 2024 any ‘life’ achieved by a fetus at only 5 months gestation in the womb will be an expensive artificial life-support system in a well-equipped hospital. That artificial life-support also comes with a high likelihood of cognitive and bodily developmental delay leading to disability if the fetus ever does become independently viable.
When weighing the validity of political propaganda, it is important to note in WHICH COUNTRY or region anti-abortion laws will be implemented. For example, if a lawmaker is trying to convince voters in your under-developed region with an economically depleted hospital system to support anti-abortion legislation because a fetus can become ‘viable’ at 5 months’ gestation — thereby breeding the false assumption that aborting that fetus would be ‘murder’ — recognize that the politician can only be referring to a ‘medical viability’ dependent on expensive technology. Before voting, check to make sure that an artificial, medical life-support system within a hospital environment is even possible in your voting district. If not, then NO ‘viability’ of any kind is possible for a fetus outside the uterus at 22 weeks’ biological gestation and … that politician is lying to you. For additional thought-provoking perspectives on this topic, check out this Think article: ‘I’m a Neonatologist. This is What Happens When a Baby is Born 5 Months Early,’ and this Croatian medical university article titled ‘Limits of Viability: Should We Play God?’
It’s no secret that a primary theme of my ENTIRE Tattered Journal is:
An organism has to be alive first before it can be killed. Therefore, terminating the life-support system sustaining a non-viable human cannot be murder (refer once again to my post titled ‘Whew! My Dad Is Not a Murderer!’).
By omitting contextual descriptors such as ‘biological,’ ‘medical’ or ‘peri’ from the term ‘viability,’ the politician (often self-disguised as ‘christian’ or ‘evangelical’ for purposes of persuasion) is spreading deceptive, false information to try and sway voters into banning abortions altogether. Such legislation would give him the political power he needs to pursue his ulterior political agenda and … control the healthcare choices available for pregnant women in your voting district (a power dynamic I plan to examine with further detail in an upcoming series I’ll likely title ‘Politicians Disguised As Evangelicals’).
COMMON SENSE:
The medical viability of a fetus born prematurely after 22 weeks’ biological gestation is only possible in wealthy, well-developed countries with the necessary hospital environment, medical equipment, and well-trained staff available to the pregnant woman.
When the term ‘viable’ is used to describe a fetus after 22 weeks’ biological gestation, it does not mean the fetus transitioned into a living breathing infant that can be murdered. When used in this context, after only 22 weeks of organic gestation in the womb, ‘viable’ either refers to
the fetus’ ability to continue developing its bodily systems while inside the womb
OR
it refers to ‘medically viable’ which means the fetus was merely transferred from its biological life-support system (the womb) to an artificial life-support system (hospital neonatal intensive care unit).
The very presence of a life-support system (whether biological or technological) indicates that the organism being sustained is not alive and, therefore, cannot be murdered. That is why I often refer to a fetus sustained on life-support as ‘non-viable’ apart from the apparatus.
Therefore, the transfer from one life-support system to another does not constitute ‘living.’ The fetus remains sustainable yet non-viable throughout the transfer.
When a fetus is removed from it’s organic life support system prior to 7 months’ biological gestation (28 weeks), it has a low chance of initiating, then sustaining the function of its own bodily systems independently — which is the very definition of … ‘alive.’
Hence the need for a life-support system in the first place.
The rare premature fetus that does survive separation from all life-support systems (biological and technological) will likely endure physical deformities, cognitive impairment, and chronic illnesses due to an under-developed brain and the inhibited or non-existent growth of organs and limbs, especially the lungs [I explore this in ‘Heartbeat, Electricity, and the Medulla Oblongata’]
These are things I know. I can figure them out logically on my own without the help of scientific advancements. Modern Science does affirm what I already knew, and that is important. That’s why this blog series is subtitled COMMON SENSE.
If you’ve experienced pregnancy, abortion, or childbirth personally, or you’ve shared the experience with a partner, you know these things too.
You just have to stop listening to the politicians and the evangelical preachers who are yelling at you,
breathe a deep relaxing breath …
and …
think about it for a minute.
