Initially, I thought that you actually knew but considered the distinction unimportant (given that Dancova said "make a distinction" and your reaction was "no way!") and what I needed to do was get you to actually consider the distinction that you knew about.

Then, I thought clearly-stated first-person accounts would be more convincing, not realizing that you would neither take the statements at face value, nor allow yourself to accept the necessary conclusion of the logic they presented in support of their views. (Nor be prompted to dig deeper to see if, just maybe, this was correct.)

I was more than half expecting you to say, in response to the poll, "Oh, but everyone who says that still supports restrictions for viability, they just think there are a couple of weeks in the third trimester where viability hasn't been established," or something else like that that I couldn't guess.

Anyway, I'm glad that you have finally noticed that this is an actual position! Usually it turns out not to be worthwhile to go back and forth for something this long, but maybe this time it actually was.

I agree that I do not at the moment have direct evidence that the actually-really-no-restrictions position is causing problems. I have lots of circumstantial evidence that it might--that it's important for people (in this case, moderates) to feel heard in order to get them on your side, that on many issues a compromise is possible but overreach can sink legislation, that in other cases avoiding the repudiation of extremes has apparently led to electoral defeat (c.f. school curriculum in Virginia governor's race), and so on. But I don't have polling data for this exactly.

However, it is not true that all legislation is being crafted by extremists who want to ban abortion. The pro-choice side isn't sitting around totally idle. The Women's Health Protection Act, regardless of what it actually does, is widely perceived on the right as codifying the right to abortion up until birth, including through viability: https://angelusnews.com/news/life-family/pro-abortion-womens-health-protection-act-fails-in-us-senate/. They are wrong--see House Resolution 3755 section 4.a.9. But it is also wrong that opponents don't say that they care. And it is also true that HR3755 widens abortion rights beyond what was strictly mandated by Roe vs Wade. Many states had restrictions that were judged legal by Roe that were less expansive than HR3755. And it's also true that HR3755 doesn't say anything about whether post-viability abortion-on-demand should be illegal, only that states are not forced to permit it.

So I don't think my concern is completely unwarranted. To my mind, the second greatest danger to abortion rights--after the anti-abortion activists trying to end all such rights, of course--is that the pro-choice side will too readily either adopt extreme positions with the rationale of "the extreme stuff won't happen anyway", or, more likely, will allow themselves to be painted as extreme by not repudiating support for extreme positions when they are charged with supporting extreme positions, and thereby lose the support they need to get anything done at all. (That, plus painting people who feel uneasy about second-trimester abortions as equivalent to the most virulent no-contraceptives no-abortion-for-any-reason-at-any-time people, who they simultaneously paint as barbaric monsters.)

Regarding your previous interactions with Dancova--I didn't know the details, of course, but although I can see how they probably shaped your responses, I am not sure they really ought to be relevant. The argument that he presented stood pretty well on its own. You can accept a valid argument by someone without endorsing their other invalid arguments; or you can grant one aspect of one position that someone has without granting all aspects of all positions that they have.

Finally, I know quite well what the distinction is between viability and not, and how that plays into the legal status.

But what I don't understand is how the typically-stated bodily autonomy argument (including your statement of this argument) respects the distinction. Can't be forced to give blood to save an adult...but...can be forced to keep giving blood to an unborn child?! Whether the "child" is a 6 week old group of rapidly differentiating cells, or a 38 week old fully formed and viable unborn infant makes no difference to the logic of the argument if the parallel is not needing to give blood. If you actually believe the argument (rather than liking the way in which it feels like it supports your point of view) then there's a contradiction there. And if the argument has caveats, it's not at all clear without stating it how you think viability changes the moral logic behind how we should structure laws.