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

i was talking about accidental births, but you mistakenly seem to be talking about births in general, in much of your post. but really, i could extend the accidental birth idea to most abortions... instead of aborting, why not, if it's easier or more helpful in the killing,,,, in any case where an abortion would otherwise be justtified, just remove the baby and kill it there? we could say "you have twenty four hours to terminate the baby", or something. i'm sure this would provide many benefits for a more clean cut kill, especially if we're concerned about the health of the mother etc. it seems society, in being against something like this, is essentially falling back to really just wanting to "keep it out of sight out of mind" etc. if we thought on principle that the birth canal does matter (even though there's nothing truly significant of this point), an accidental birth might see as more "fair game" of a kill outside of the womb. perhaps freely allowing outside womb killings when an abortion is otherwise justified is seen as too "not fair game" to the baby.... but, it's not like anyone intended it to happen, the birth. the accident puts fair gameness in mothers side, cause it's a mere technicalty. you say the birth canal should be the official demarcation but haven't truly given any real significance to the points other than references to how it'd be chaotic etc if we didn't. but it doesn't have to be chaotic, we can give clear guidelines. if it's easier to kill in the mom then do it there... if it's easier to kill out of the mom do it there. same difference, really. you did try to attribute some significance to the birth canal, but haven't really proven why it's truly significant.... "when a baby is fully born, it is undoubtedly a human being in its first moments of life outside of the womb" it's just as much a human being inside two minutes earlier too. it might be the first moments of life outside the womb, but you haven't said why that matters. you say that point is an emotionally attached point... but emotion doesn't really mean much, cold calculated truth does.. and two minutes outside v inside doesn't make a difference. "Pro then goes on to argue that "a few minutes difference isn't substantial" and that "any point [we pick/agree on] would be arbitrary". This isn't logical. We HAVE to pick a point, otherwise, if we had it your way, there wouldn't be any right for abortion OR there would be, even after the baby was born, which wouldn't be a controlled abortion on undeveloped foetus, but a killing of a newborn! " sure, we can pick a point twenty four hours after the birth or something. remember, my hypotheticdal is about abortion procedures that became accidental. and, as i said though we could extend it to any situation where an abortion would be otherwise justified.... why demarcate the birth canal when all it is is a technicality? if anything, if the kill is more clean cut, it makes more sense to demarcate outside teh womb if its more helpful. then again... yes tehre's also the possiblity that we don't allow the abortion later in the pregnancy. as i said, when an abortion is otherwise justified.... either we allow it inside the mom and outside the mom (agains when otherwise abortion is justified, and it'd eb helpful to the killing procedure)... or we don't for either