Can we agree there might be some nuance with the words “viability” “extreme” and “severe”?
I look at viability as when a baby is born able to breath on its own or with minimal medical intervention. Extreme and severe would require expensive measures to keep the baby alive. You are correct that there is nuance in the terms.
Because we (not you and I but society at large) are not speaking the same language unless most of us agree to your definition above (or at least some definition). To say slavery is an “economic choice” would be beyond insulting in Western society today (though it was framed that way for thousands of years) because we (society) share the same cultural views of slavery. Today, there are hundreds of competing views on abortion that must be worked out culturally before the discussion can move to economics.
A woman getting an abortion reaps the economic benefits of the abortion since she won’t have to pay for the birth and raising of the child. Her abortion in no way affects anyone else economically. A woman who can’t afford to raise a child and goes on welfare does effect others economically, as we will have to help pay to raise the child.
That is what I mean when I say that abortion is an economic issue.
Otherwise, pro-lifers will call abortions murder, pro-choicers will call restrictions religious dogma and/or anti-woman, and those of us who think “hey, this stuff is really complicated” will get called wrong from both sides.
But it’s really not that complicated. A woman who has an abortion is really no different than a woman who was never pregnant. Her fecundity has absolutely no bearing on society at large.