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

Pro's main point seems to be in the opening statement - "Why is the birth-point more valid than any other point", i. e. , why do we allow the abortion of the unborn baby and not the killing of the born baby; Pro sees no difference between the two and sees no significance in it Firstly, Pro says that "we might say that the birth point is our arbitary magic point. but why is the arbitary point of any true significance? ". Here pro firstly refers to the point being "arbitrary" which is a cold and calculating view of the reason for it being there in the first place; when a baby is fully born, it is undoubtedly a human being in its first moments of life outside of the womb. Pro doesn't see the difference between "aborting" and "killing" a baby and doesn't recognise this. It isn't an "arbitrary" point at all, but a highly heated and controversial topic (abortion in general) and isn't something to be seen as a dimensionless issue but an extremely emotionally attached and important one. I'd also like to point out that Pro's statement on "why is the . .. point of any . .. significance" shows a downfall in Pro's belief. Pro seems to be saying that there isn't any true significant point to it and that killing a newborn is the same as an emergency abortion for example, or a partially born baby. Partial birth abortion is never a choice but is used for the mother's safety. You cannot legally in the USA have an abortion after around 24-28 weeks and so it would only ever be used for the safety of the mother. Pro doesn't make this distinction and creates a flawed argument. You then go on to say that the mother is not hindered if the baby is delivered alive instead of aborting. Now this is an interesting point because again, it seems to point to a lack of an understanding of emotional bonding between a mother and her newborn. They have been bonding for nine months, when the newborn is born, the majority of parents bond with their children immediately upon seeing them "Studies have found that about 20% of new mums and dads feel no real emotional attachment to their newborn in the hours after delivery" [s1]. So not only is this false, but it lacks the emotional and factual understanding to get to the root and to understand this issue in its entirety. 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! What will the cut off point be if it is after birth and it happens to be an accidental one? Would it mean you could decide to kill the child up to when they're five years old for example? Can't you see we have a NEED for some distinction around the world on the laws of abortion? Pro is arguing that all points are arbitrary; I argue that a point is needed for it to be legitimately handled/avoid confusion. You then go on to say "why not follow partial birth to its logical conclusion and just kill the baby out of womb? ". Again, you say it's logical, but it really is the opposite and you need to rethink what you're arguing. You seem to think that if, arguably, partial birth abortion was still legally a woman's choice, then it's okay to kill the child AFTER birth. There is nothing logical about this. You then go on to say that "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". This is too narrow minded and too sweeping a statement, especially because of the complexities of the cases (which you can read the controversies in my sources over particulars) which occurs with this rare procedure. If we say one is wrong and one is right we are in no way saying that we have to accept all or none of the positions; this is fallible and I don't think I need to say more as to why. You finally say that "it's just technicalities that con can prove" which I've demonstrably proven to be a non-point in this debate as this debate totally rests on technicalities due to its sensitivity and rarity in its cases. Pro obviously shows a lack of understanding if they believe it to be so black and white and interchangeable with regular abortion, which they obviously do. As for my argument, I believe that if for argument's sake partial birth abortion were to happen legally as the choice of the mother, it doesn't follow that you should therefore kill a child afterwards. Firstly; an accidental birth is fairly rare in Westernised societies and I'm finding it hard to find any evidence for a substantial amount of cases for either of the two topics in the debate's title. But supposing it was quite a big problem, what then? Would it still be acceptable? In short, no, absolutely not. Firstly, not many women are unaware if they're pregnant, and heavily pregnant especially. In western societies there are lots of options and time for the woman to decide what to do, this includes if they're choosing the abortion or are having it for health reasons. On to the main point though; partial birth abortion accounts for "0.17%" [s2] of abortions in the US, just to get the argument in perspective, and also, the various medical associations in the USA do not "recognize [the term] as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. [8]" [s2] and is used to emphasise or inflame those who are debating in political discourse. Technically, it is only a partial birth and you can read about the description in [s2], for it is too long to quote, but it seems to allude to it being under very rare and emergency circumstances; it isn't used for leisure and nor is it used readily enough to pose a threat to the safety of the majority of births. And remember, that figure was just out of abortions! It would have been a hell of a lot smaller in comparison to all the births in the country. From this then, in the understanding that it is definitely not equatable to normal abortion (which is allowed to happen in the UK and the USA up to 24-28 weeks or in other words "Fetal viability" [s3] through choice and in the USA, if the mother's life is at risk, it can happen whenever because she comes first) it doesn't follow that if "partial birth abortion" were to occur, which it already does, then accidental birth (which I'm not sure is even happening much, if at all in westernised countries and I need you to define what accidental birth is) killing shouldn't be accepted because they're totally different. You can have an abortion in the USA up to 24-28 weeks legally, and an abortion whenever is necessary to save the woman's life. In simple terms; partial birth abortion is in no way equatable to killing a newborn baby. [s1]. http://www.webmd.boots.com... [s2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [s3]. http://en.wikipedia.org...