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

Pro, I'm finding it almost impossible to understand your points because of your like of grammar or lack of clarity. AGAIN Pro hasn't given me a definition of accidental birth and I assume Pro means if they're aborted but for some reason are born alive because the abortion wasn't effective. Pro says "if it's healthier to the mom and easier to kill in the mom, kill there. if outside meets those conditions, kill there". Pro, I cannot reiterate it any plainer; why would you ever need to kill a baby after its been born? Why would the mother's health be then linked to that baby when it is born? The baby is no longer in the mother and therefore, by simple logic, no health risks could come to the mother due to the separate entity that is now the baby. I do not understand your point at all; you cannot establish a difference between abortion past 24-28 weeks for the safety of the mother and killing a baby AFTER it is born. you then say "of coruse in both cases an abortion would need ot be otherwise justified. ie, you can't kill outside of the womb if you couldn't kill inside". This again makes no logical sense; the only reason you'd need to kill a baby in very late pregnancy would be for the safety of the mother, not for ANY other reason. Why would you, again, EVER need to kill a baby after it's born? If we've established that the only reason to abort this late would be because of the health of the mother, then why would you go through the most dangerous part which was the part that endangered the mother's life and then kill the baby afterwards when it has no effect on her health? You then talk about how I'm seeing the birth canal as the "magic point without considering other factors like ease of kill and mother's well being"; you're not making any sense and this again links to what I've said above. You then say "other factors should come into play" like the "ease of the kill", but Pro, why do we NEED to kill the baby if the danger was over? If the mother's life was in danger, then the mother comes first, so why didn't they abort the baby before it was born and then kill the baby? What sense does this make? None whatsoever. It's nothing to do with technicalities, it's to do with logic in which you are obviously lacking in this exchange. You accuse me of using "fluff" language and being more concerned with technicalities than reality. Pro is blind if they seriously think I'm stating my points in a contradictory manner. However, the language I use has no impact on the debate and the fact that Pro has resorted to attacking the way I converse shows how weak their position is. "it's not unheard of that healthy babies are aborted, even if it's for the health of the mother". Pro, this is EXACTLY what I've been saying; if the mother is at risk, then the baby can be aborted, so I'm glad we agree on that, yet you think we don't. You then say that "con should be talking about requiring mohters to give birth to relatively healthy infants, if it's possible to save both lives, wehn the mother's life is in danger .... instead of aborting". I do not understand what you're saying here, and the general lack of clarity is making it impossible for me to know your position. Are you saying that we should have healthy infants born all the time no matter what the risk is to the mother's health? Are you saying that we shouldn't always do it if the mother's life is endanger? Or are you saying it should be born and then killed? I do not understand what you're getting at here at all. Pro finally goes on to say how killing a baby in the womb is the same as killing 24 hours after it's born. Pro says if we should allow abortion we should allow the other. This is not only riddled with fallacy but also a disturbing view. All in all, no, if partial birth abortion were allowed, accidental birth killing shouldn't be allowed. Pro hasn't given me any points or serious refutation, and where Pro tried, it was too muddled, incoherent and lacking grammar to make sense of any semblances of good points. Pro didn't address my points about the father's say if it were by some horrendous coincidence allowed by law, and Pro hasn't successfully argued their main point of it being "an arbitrary point": it's quite the opposite. Pro said there was no place for technicalities or in depth considerations of the proposal despite the whole experience of Partial birth abortion and accidental birth to be very rare cases which need independent consideration and need clear guidelines and rules. Pro has shown a lack of any logic in their statements and hasn't presented any source information to back up their claims. Finally then, it is clear we need clear rules and legislation not only for this proposal but for matters to do with abortion generally. Medicine is selfless in that it helps people to better themselves and that is the most basic theme throughout all medical fields. Pro seems to see no problem in killing a new born for no apparent reason, because, as I've shown, there would be no danger to the mother's life once the baby was born and out of the womb. In other words, Pro is either arguing a point they don't really understand, or they're arguing that we should kill new born babies for no good reason at all. It shouldn't be the mother or father's choice after the healthy baby is born whether it should be killed or not because there's no sense in it and I'm surprised Pro hasn't seen that herself.