You are presenting a definition of "viablility" that is not related to the point at hand.If you can't tell the difference between NO function and REDUCED function, you're too stupid to discuss the issue.
Your switcheroo happened here:
1) Your original definition of "viability": If fetus requires medical support after born, he/she is not considered viable.
2) Much, much later you changed your definition. You said a fetus is considered viable if he/she is able to live WITH medical support upon birth.
Everyone (inluding your prochoice buds) can see that you are introducing the new concept - "NO function vrs REDUCED function - as a pink flamingo. Your head fake is duly noted, but it doesn't explain or coverup your change in perspective re viability & medical support.
Why not admit that upon further review, you find fetuses who are able to live WITH medical support upon birth are considered viable?
What's so hard about that?
Admitting that you gleaned a knew perspective shouldn't cause such anxiety & insecurity in you.