Some medical ethicists and constitutional scholars say that the Supreme Court was wrong to create the pre-viability / post-viability distinction in the first place. Why, they ask, does the fact that a fetus can survive outside the womb with the help of vast medical technology change either of the interests at war in the abortion debate: the fetus's own claim to " human-ness " and a woman's right to control her body?
Ethicists and scholars say the Supreme Court was wrong to create viability distinction.  Why does the fact that a fetus can survive without med tech change the interests in the abortion debate.