I could have worded my post more carefully. I assumed that the point you must have been trying to make (in order to make much sense with the posts that preceded it), that...

"A blastocyte is not a fetus. Nor is a fetus necessarily viable. Nor is a viable fetus necessarily...well, do a websearch for images using the term "acephalic"..."

The logical conclusion, relative to the rest of the thread was...

The only reason a fetus was brought up, and therefore the only reason to draw a distinction between it and a blastocyte, would be to make the case that the same ethics/morality would not necessarily apply to both.

Therefore, the only reason one might conclude that one would go further in their explanation that, "Nor is a fetus necessarily viable", (relative to the rest of the discussion) would be to further point out that it would be a like mistake to apply the ethics or morality to a fetus anyway as they may or may not be "viable".

Further, to assert into the same logical progression that, "...well, do a websearch for images using the term "acephalic"", one could easily be led to conclude a "for instance" to the viablity issue regarding fetuses.

So, it follows a logical progression that, because a fetus might not be viable, then these pesky questions of ethics and morality need not apply.

What else could one conclude from your post, considering where it fits in the entirety of the thread?