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

Pro hasn't offered me an explanation on what they mean by "Accidental birth" and I'm still confused as to what Pro means on this; a lack of clarification on Pro's part should be noted by the voters. Pro's argument is contradicting itself. You first say "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?" and then later Pro goes on to say that "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". Pro's position, in short, is muddled. Pro first says that if an abortion is possible, why not just kill it outside of the womb and then goes on to say if it's easier to kill inside then do it there and if outside then do it outside. Pro's point is muddied and I haven't got much of an idea what they mean. 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. Now you're saying that there's "no real significance" in it's rights as a human being 2 minutes before it's born to when it is first born into the world. I agree with you, however I was making the point that it is most DEFINITELY a human being when it is born and is endowed with human rights; in other words, killing a baby 24 hours after it's born is not the mother's right because she has no business in killing a 1 day old baby just because she may not like it. When that baby is born, it comes under protection from the state and so allowing it to be killed 24 hours after birth is not only illogical (due to what I've said before) but brutal. There are other options if this accidental birth happened. They could give them up for adoption for example, or they could give them to their parents to raise or whatever other scenarios we could conceive of. Also, if the baby is born, then the Doctors would have allowed it because it was safe for the mother. They would've in the earlier stages picked up anything like if it was putting the mother in danger and would deal with it accordingly. This accidental birth would never happen as you say it would. And I again point out that you haven't given me any reasons to believe that killing a new born is in any way just or logical. You say that "emotion doesn't really mean much" yet you'd have a mother decide if she wanted to kill her newborn for a reason I'm really not having the faintest idea of! As I stated in my last argument, 80% of parents bond with their children in the first moments of holding them in their arms. I cannot think of a society which would voluntarily kill newborns for reasons you haven't stated clearly enough for me to understand, not in the Westernised world any way. You then finally say that "if the kill is more clean cut, it makes more sense to demacrate outside teh womb if its more helpful". This is something I cannot quite comprehend; by your logic, people would be better off to be killed cleanly than to have the option to live. How isn't abortion "clean" to you? It's painless for the woman (except emotional, of course) and for the foetus. They normally inject the foetus or have other ways in which to deal with abortions and then there's counselling services and all other types of aid for the woman and the father to help through grieving. Medicine is there to help people, not to make the most efficient sense. Emotion is vital in this, because medicine should help everyone no matter who they are, and your cold view on it all doesn't make sense, especially with this subject matter. Also, we keep referring to the mother, but what about the father? Surely he should get a say on whether his son or daughter is slaughtered when they're a human being outside of the womb in the world? Pro doesn't understand that there is options other than killing off a baby if it is unwanted (which I think is what you're getting at, because I've established this is the only conceivable possibility for your killings to be even considered by the parents). There are thousands and thousands of couples in the USA waiting for a baby to adopt, so why kill the baby if it has already been born and it isn't wanted by the mother or father? Why if it has been born, waste the life that has been created? Why not give it to a loving family and let it grow up healthily with love and a future? This goes beyond abortion; when that baby comes into this world, the woman's rights does not mean she can now have the baby killed. The doctors would have dealt with it if the birth was going to kill her by having it aborted or having it born earlier. Pro doesn't understand that that baby, when it's born, has the same rights as you and I and no one has the rights to kill an innocent newborn on the grounds of it "being similar to an abortion" when it is anything but. This is wrong, and a silly and inhumane position to take. If this happened in my society I'd be ashamed to be a part of it.