One of the abortion industry’s ‘go to’ words is viability. They argue that if a child can’t live outside the womb it’s ok to kill it; for a fee of course. As I pointed out when I wrote this piece last year, the issue of viability and its definition are hard to quantify. Under their definition of viability, a newborn child can live outside its mother’s womb, so it is off limits to them. A newborn child and a child, for many years after birth, cannot live on its own without love and support from others. Bottom line: whether in the womb or not, a child is a living human being that has the right to live. Using words like viable or unfit to live are nothing but excuses for the inexcusable. The abortion debate will continue. The fact that abortion takes a human life cannot be disputed with any degree of logic.
Vi-a-ble: able to live; specifically, at that stage of development that will permit it to live outside of the uterus: said of a fetus or a prematurely born infant.
Many of those lacking the courage to oppose abortion at every stage of an unborn child’s development hang their hat on the issue of viability. They try to justify the unjustifiable by taking the position that a child that hasn’t developed to the point that it can survive outside its mother’s body can be killed on demand. They conveniently brush aside the fact that the unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a living human being. Viability is an inexact determination and a fatally flawed premise on which to base the legal execution of an innocent child.
An unborn child, totally dependent on its mother for survival, is no less human and no less alive than the mother, and deserving…
View original post 361 more words