I should have made clear that my comment was directed to gridlock. I pinged you only because I was concerned that you had somehow taken at face value gridlock's ridiculous misrepresentation that I somehow favored a viability test based upon the ability to ride a bicycle.
What do you favor basing a viability test on? Roe v Wade based it on an arcane survivability/trimester formula that has long since been obsoleted by medical science.
It seems to me the "is it a human yet or not" or "is it a alive yet or not" pro abort arguments are basically dishonest justifications for what they really advocate. It is clear that a fetus is alive, genetically distinct from its mother, and genetically human even at the multi cell stage.
What is truly advocated at heart by both abortion advocates and fetal cell advocates is that the death of one unique human organism is justifiable homicide because of the benefit to another unique human organism.
A society can justify the killing of an attacker, a convicted offender, or an enemy soldier, and absolve the killer of shame and guilt, because such acts are seen to benefit society more than the preservation of the same life. Even so do the abort crowd seek to lay off the cost of their moral choice through a variety of justifications, such as "medical benefit to victims of horrible afflictions" or "mental well-being of the pregnant woman".
In most historically accepted cases of justifiable homicide, the person killed bears some responsibility for the situation. For an unborn human, this is never the case, hence the reluctance to call the killing of the unborn exactly that. By their euphemisms ye shall know them.