I think the concept of "viability" is murky and imprecise enough that anyone can arbitrarily define it to fit their ideological beliefs; and I don't foresee technological improvements making a difference anytime soon.

Our understanding of and ability to mimic biology at the hardware level is actually extremely limited. What we have gotten marginally good at is figuring out how to alter the software (nucleic acids), but we still need nature's hardware to do all the work, and how exactly it all gets done we still dont really understand well enough to mimic, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.

And when I say "alter" the software even that is a bit of misnomer. As mostly we just take genes that evolved naturally and stick them in another organism to be read and made.

Maybe not?

I think viability is a reasonable attempt at a compromise (and reasonable doesn't have to mean logically airtight in my view) and I would continue to think so even if the technological status quo changed, although I would probably think large changes in relation to that would suggest other related policy changes.

But prediction is difficult. Especially of the future.

Oh but it does. Probably an interesting discussion on its own and I'll need to think about it some...but something that is illogical is....illogical.

I think the word I would use is "workable". It might even be better than "reasonable." But I don't care too much what you call things. Although I enjoy that in your usage I get to say that basically all of your views are unreasonable, so it's got that going for it.

Well it's important to consider that I don't offer normative views other than "don't kill people". So if you think that's unreasonable then that is something for you to consider but I'm ok with it.
Other than that I try to focus on what is true or false.

In this thread though we're up to: 1) admitting that it's killing 2) admitting that the standard with which that is based on is illogical

So what we would need to work on is admitting the killing is wrong and that illogical standards are wrong. Then we can all sing kumbaya together.

Your (2) is incorrect. I don't think (1) was ever in question.

What is the issue with #2? What makes viability a logical standard?
And yeah upon reread I see you claimed that it didn't have to be logically airtight but not that it was illogical.
And I'm pretty sure 1 was in question.

If the truth offends, then let it offend!

Truth > Feelings

Too many questions at once. Please try again. Give me your "top three", and I'll work from there.

I'm trying to work it out and imagining how it all went down in the courts as something like this:
Women: We need to be able to kill these kids
State: We don't care about the kids any more than you do, but we do need future taxpayers.
Court: How about a compromise? If the kid can survive on its own in the open air then you can't kill it. Deal?
Women and state: Deal.

Give us a more compelling point then. How do you kill something that has never been a viable life? Basing it on conception is the most nonsensical of any standard as it lacks any logical basis.

I think you have proved my point. Sorry for your inability to hold more than one thought in there at a time.

I don't have another standard to offer but the answer to the bolded is: pretty easily.

The whole "viability" concept is mostly arbitrary from a biologic viewpoint, although I would concede from an anthropologic/cultural viewpoint some ideas work better than others.

No lifeforms is ever completely viable on its own. All life requires the correct environment. In **** sapiens for the first 40 weeks or so after fertilization that correct environment is a uterus; and for the remaining time it is on terrestrial land under suitable conditions.

You can even take it a step further and argue all eukaryotic organisms require a symbiosis with billions of prokaryotic organism. How viable is an individual really if they require billions of "non-self" organisms living inside them to even survive?

Once fertilization occurs, you are you. Making allowances for the occasional somatic mutation, every cell created from this original cell is going to have your unique DNA signature. The whole "viable" part of the argument is mostly arbitrary, and ultimately going to be decided using anthropologic norms, but biologically it seems this is a logical point to argue a unique, new lifeform has been created.

Now are haploid gametes alive too? This is an interesting question. This is a pretty big swerve, but I actually find the whole notion of thinking about what exactly "life" is to be pretty interesting.

Are viruses life? Prions? Eukaryotic haploid gametes? Does life even need to be carbon based at all? etc. etc. etc.

Since my mind-reading skills ain't what they used to be, could you please tell me exactly what point you were making?

If you had better reading skills, I think you would have understood that I could handle THREE thoughts at a time.

I think we should just stick with marsupials because 1) they are mammals. 2) they are cute (even if some of those kangaroos are vicious 3) (and most importantly) no placentas. 4) undoubtedly alive even when penny-sized joeys.

That you believe a woman has no reproductive rights after she becomes pregnant. Under your view, there is nothing to balance.

I listed three possible "counter-balances":

1. Rape

2. Incest

3. Catastrophic health threat to the mother.

Exceptions to your stated principle are not the same as how the law should balance the rights of different parties. Hence, why your previous answer was unresponsive to the original ONE question you were asked.

If a woman voluntarily becomes pregnant, then she should be in my opinion be legally compelled to give birth unless the pregnancy poses an atypically high major health risk to the mother.

And the father should be required to pay for the care of the mother and child.

The mother should be relieved of any legal responsibilties, at her discretion, after the baby is born.

Do you take issue using the concept of viability in determining acceptable end of life care? Most DNRs and living wills are premised on the person making a choice between quality of life and mere viability through artificial means.

Right, under your view, she has no reproductive freedom or rights after the point of conception.