It is the most primitive stage of a fully formed oak tree.
I can't help but notice you completely dodged the question. Is an acorn a living tree? This is a yes or no question. I'm not asking about your ideas on staging. I am asking if you believe you would call an acorn a living tree right now if someone placed it in your hand.
No, it shouldn't, because "viable" is a word used for a lot more than just talking about organisms in general and fetuses in specific, however much the left has tried to hijack the word. If you want to do an organ transplant, you can't just use any old organ. You need to use a viable one, one that has the capacity for life inside the patient (just as an example).
Yes, viable can be used in other contexts, but we're talking about this one context, which the definition you yourself presented applies to. Furthermore, you clarification also repeats the underlying message of viability meaning capacity for life. Even in your "other" context, it's the same thing: can the organ survive in this new environment? Once again this is answered with a yes or no response, not a staging or the idea that it might become something else in time.
I don't give a good goddamn when viability outside the womb occurs, because no matter how many times you run off at the mouth about it in order to pretend that that's the issue, or even important to the debate, that doesn't make it so. In short, they DON'T count.
And what's the issue? Based on the very topic of this thread, I was under the impression the issue was the beginning of human life. As YOU pointed out, the capacity for life is the very definition of viability. Adding these last two sentences together: Viability is the capacity to achieve this thread's topic. And yet you are still silly enough to believe it "doesn't count", against your own definition.
Has anyone bothered to tell you that not only are humans and trees not the same species, they aren't even in the same KINGDOM? How a plant does and doesn't develop as fuck-all to do with humans, dumbass. They're not comparable.
Epic fucking fail, drooler.
It's interesting, because I never equated trees to humans. You just did. The reason WHY you just did is because you are well aware that an acorn is not a tree. You drew a parallel between the two topics in your head, realized your defeat in the analogy, and instead of answering the question, resorted to a huffy little temper tantrum.
The underlying point I am making regarding the analogy is that the capacity to become something else does not make the starting product the end product.
The fact that an acorn is not a living tree parallels the fact that a 4 celled embryo is not a living human being. Yes, each former can become the latter, but that doesn't make them equal. And despite the differences in species, you cannot actually point out what is fundamentally different regarding the ability to CHANGE from one state to another between the examples. All you can do is complain.
