In a similar way that you don't like religion dictating science, I don't like the law dictating science. On the flip side, advances in science should change the law.
So as the definition of viability changes as science and technology progress, so should the rights of a person to retain their life. I would argue that viability today is different than viability in 1973 simply because we understand the science of pregnancy better than we used to.
My personal minimum opinion of choice is that if a fetus is scientifically capable of viability outside the womb, then it should be afforded the basic right to life no matter where it is currently located geographically. And that definition should change as science reveals more about what we don't know.
no subject
So as the definition of viability changes as science and technology progress, so should the rights of a person to retain their life. I would argue that viability today is different than viability in 1973 simply because we understand the science of pregnancy better than we used to.
My personal minimum opinion of choice is that if a fetus is scientifically capable of viability outside the womb, then it should be afforded the basic right to life no matter where it is currently located geographically. And that definition should change as science reveals more about what we don't know.