The weasel-word has always been "viable," which I believe has been pushed back to about 20-21 weeks by improvements in medical care.
One might predict that the "survival" record could be earlier, given sufficient advancement.
It's been my observation that pro-aborts don't particularly like being reminded that viability is essentially a technological issue -- they use it as a convenient crutch to avoid the "right or wrong" question.
When pressed, they will immediately revert to arguments based on cost, or (the old standby) various arguments based on the convenience of the mother.
And, really, "convenience" is what underlies most of the pro-abort arguments -- whether it be a trade of life vs. cost, or life vs. the mother's loss of opportunity ... it really just boils down to a utilitarian question.
It's an interesting debate strategy ... especially since everybody at heart agrees with the fact that it's really a baby, not a lump of flesh.
“The weasel-word has always been “viable,” which I believe has been pushed back to about 20-21 weeks by improvements in medical care.”
The age at which the fetus can live outside the womb is getting younger and younger, thanks to technology. Soon “viability” will be irrelevant—it will all come down to whether we’ll tolerate killing fetuses that could live outside the mother.