I guest the question is: Does Curly feel comfortable defining human rights on a sliding scale...such that humans now do not have certain human rights (and therefore we can kill them), but if those humans were conceived 50 years from now, they would have human rights (and therefore we wouldn't be able to kill them if they were conceived later).
To me, viability is a point of compromise, and it is better than abortion right up until the baby is half born, which is what we have now. I would support the compromise of viability, not because it is correct (I don't think it is--I think all abortion is morally wrong) but because it will save lives in the short term (it will ban most abortions), and it will eventually lead to the abolition of abortion altogether.