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

accidental births are not unheard of. sometimes they occur during an attemp[ted abotion like partial birth soemtimes they don't. i wasn't contradicting myself, if it's healthier to the mom and easier to kill in the mom, kill there. if outside meets those conditions, kill there. ... of coruse in both cases an abortion would need ot be otherwise justified. ie, you can't kill outside the womb if you couldn't kill inside. to demarcate the birth canal as the magic point without considering other factors like ease of kill and mother's well being is height of arbitrariness, and really self contradictaryness. if it's permissible to kill two minutes in or two, it's the same difference.... other factors should come into play. the fact that doctors think they need to even do partial birth abortions shows that people have no real basis for these demarcations. this is literally going to the most extreme of this arbitrary point... mere inches to fulfill a technicality. if it's in any way easier, why not just kill outside of the womb? the language con uses to me illustrates he's more concerned about techncialities and fluff think than reality. he insists "it's a new born at that pooint!". that he uses words like newborn and disregards the fact that an inch or two later he's fair game to be killed... shows that he's more inclined to fluff think. "newborn" type language. fetus v baby type language. if it at least tried to expound on "rights" of the newborn outside of the womb, he'd be indicating it's not so much fluff sentimentality. course, if we went that route... we'd have to consider whetheri t's truly right and fair and just to kill the baby sometime healthy babies mind you two seconds in but can't two seconds out. (when an abotion would be justified) "And I have proved why it's significant. 24-28 weeks is there because it's when the foetus matures into an independent baby as I have stated in my sources before hand. After that point, it's no longer legal in the USA to have an abortion unless the mother's life is at risk." it's not unheard of that healthy babies are aborted, even if it's for the health of the mother (and to be sure, yes soemtime emotional health is abused as an excuse to abort healthy babies) at the very least, to be consistent... 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. that way he wouldn't be essentially demarcating arbitrary points. he acts as if we can't not be arbitary and should choose the birth canal (there's no reason we coudn't choose twenty four hours later if we did that)... but as i asid in my initial post... we can demarcate a point of all healthy baby killing is wrong either inside or outside teh mom as there's disputed viablity or whatever (if it's the only way to save the mom, to abort... that's understandable, and one thing)... but more lenient abortions insdie or outside during less disputed times. this makes killing decisions less because of technical points in space of a few seconds.. and about the actual health v non of both mother and child.