For decades, the pro-choice movement in the United States predicated its argument on one thing: The entity inside a women is not a human being until "viability." There was debate about when "viability" began, as well as the exact definition of the term. However, it was generally understood that a pre-born individual became "viable" when it could survive outside of its mother's body, and no longer needed that body's protections or supply of nutrients to continue to live.

As our scientific understanding of the development of human beings in the womb advanced, the goal posts moved.

We now know that from conception, a fetus has its own unique DNA, making it a completely separate entity from its mother or father. Studies have also revealed incredible development at the most early stages of life. With the advent of "4D ultrasounds," we are able to see infants in the womb with incredible detail and in three dimensions.

As a result of these scientific discoveries, the pro-choice argument shifted from: "This isn't a human being" to "Yes, this is a human being, but it has no legal right to exist inside me without my express and continuing permission."

A new development in fetal technology was recently announced by Alan Flake, "a fetal surgeon at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia," according to NPR. This technology acts as an artificial womb:

The device consists of a clear plastic bag filled with synthetic amniotic fluid. A machine outside the bag is attached to the umbilical cord to function like a placenta, providing nutrition and oxygen to the blood and removing carbon dioxide. ... A study published Tuesday involving eight animals found the device appears effective at enabling very premature fetuses to develop normally for about a month.

According to Flake:

The whole idea is to support normal development; to re-create everything that the mother does in every way that we can to support normal fetal development and maturation ... We've been extremely successful in replacing the conditions in the womb in our lamb model. ... They've had normal growth. They've had normal lung maturation. They've had normal brain maturation. They've had normal development in every way that we can measure it.

This is an incredible advancement in multiple ways. Although human testing is at least three to five years away, and Flake himself claims the artificial womb is only designed to continue the development of infants 23 weeks and above, the very idea of an artificial uterus is already alarming the pro-choice lobby.

Flake says that his team "never had any intention with this technology of extending the limits of viability further back," adding that such a thing would "open a whole new can of worms."

According to bioethicist Dena Davis: "Up to now, we've been either born or not born. This would be halfway born, or something like that. Think about that in terms of our abortion politics."

NPR adds: "States could theoretically require women getting abortions to put their fetuses into artificial wombs, says Scott Gelfand, a bioethicist at Oklahoma State University."

With this advancement, the goal posts will once again shift in order to accommodate progressive views on abortion. Why? Because abortion has never been an ethics issue for the progressive movement; it is and always has been a political issue. Progressives use abortion for their own benefit — to gain support and gather votes.

One rarely hears a Democrat use the term abortion. Instead, "abortion" has been supplanted with euphemistic terms like "reproductive health," and "choice." These designations have allowed politicians in the Democratic Party to pull the abortion debate out of the ethical arena, and into the political. In doing this, the Democrats have created a beautifully twisted narrative:

Women are in peril; Republicans want to control their bodies by making them have unwanted children. We, members of the Democratic Party, will do everything in our power to stop these cruel Republicans if you vote for us.

This narrative has been relatively easy to maintain. However, scientific advancements have forced progressives to bend and twist in grotesque ways for the narrative to continue to function properly.

With the advent of an artificial womb, more bending will be necessary. If such an invention can eventually be used to sustain the life of a developing human from conception to birth, the Democratic Party will lose their "good versus evil" abortion story. Such an advancement would make abortion a non-issue. Progressives would lose one of their most powerful means of voter manipulation. They will not allow this to happen — and so, the goal posts will be moved.

The next set of arguments employed by progressives in order to preserve the abortion debate have many potential branches. Of course, these arguments will hang on fringe cases, which will then be used to fight more broadly.

One could claim that it's psychologically cruel to force a woman who was raped to allow a machine to carry her child to full term. One could use the familiar argument that non-aborted children will have a difficult life in the foster care system. One could even argue that an infant belongs to its mother because it was conceived using the organic material from her body, and as such, it is her legal right to decide its fate.

This is where the progressive movement will go. Pro-abortion politicians and organizations will never let go of their weapon. Ever. They don't care about human life, and they never have.

Technology and science have advanced to such a state that the humanity of the pre-born has become obvious. Additionally, the possibility of sustaining the life of a fetus outside its host mother could soon become a reality. As a result, progressives are leaping to more and more ludicrous arguments in order to sustain their platform.

Watch for this development in the Democratic Party and its members over the next several years.