if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

Before I continue, I would like to point out that due to my opponent's flawed usage of sentence structure and grammar, I am forced to try and deduce this with little reference material or guidelines. Anything I infer is based solely on what I might be able to scrounge together. ---------------------------------------------------First and foremost, I will respond to your question, "if the mother has all those problems that PBA would allow... but she's able to deliver the baby, why would we allow her to abort it?"Here, I am guessing that you were trying to ask, "If the mother was in danger from one of the given conditions, but she delivers the baby, why would we allow her to abort it"Well... We wouldn't. That would be contrary to what I had argued in the opening round. The situation you mention falls under the second category of accidental birth during a PBA; which I stated is not the same as a standard procedure PBA. As long as the baby is in the mother, and it has the potential to injure or kill her if brought to full term, it is a candidate for PBA. If, however, during that procedure, the baby were to be delivered prematurely instead of being terminated while still partially inside of it's mother, then it is an exception, and should be viewed as a procedure similar to a caesarian Section (a perfectly legal procedure, used to birth babies that are at nearly full term, and occasionally to abort them).Next, I will respond to your quote, "she essentially has all the same arguments with the baby two minutes inside her as she'd have two minutes outside of her. any distinction about the birth canal are merely technicalities... how are they not?"What my opponent fails to realise, is that as long as that baby is inside the mother, it can be life-threatening. Certain medical cases, such as 'Water on the Brain'[1] that cause the fetus's head to swell up to 2x-3x it's normal size and can lead to health complications in the mother. Also, there are many other "terminable" conditions that don't develop until later, but can be devastating to the Mother or Child, such as EB [2]. Johnny Kennedy, famous for both Having EB and fighting for funding and research for EB, is quoted to have said, "If I ever had a child, and I knew it would have EB, I would not think twice, I would have it terminated."Diseases like EB with no cure are one reason to abort a child using PBA, or any other form of abortion. These oddities would be the exception to the rule. In ANY other case, where a baby with no devastating health issues was 'accidentally delivered during PBA', then there is no cause for termination, as the mother is now safe, and the child is neither threatening it's mother's life, nor the victim of a terrible disease or condition. At the end of my opponent's argument, she mentions this, "if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other."Though I am unsure as to what that statement actually says, I believe I have answered this question in the rest of my argument, here in the 2nd round. Since my opponent showed no real argument in either of her last two statements, I will go ahead and accept this as a most definite win for the Con side.Also, I've been awake for the better part of 40 hours, so I apologise if I wander, or get a bit sidetracked. Thanks for understanding :)1 http://www.chop.edu...2 http://www.channel4.com...