Your point 1 goes against the law of the land: abortion should be accessible without hinder. It is obvious that Right leaning conservative with X-tian values are pecking at that right. Considering that your first premise should be invalid this weakens your introduction.
Your 2nd point is also on a slippery slope because modern medicine techniques can detect basically every genetic disease that would become apparent at birth.
your 3rd point is actually the point for free and legal abortion.

Assuming all your invalid points were correct. Your solution would not equal or replace abortion. Euthanasia extinguishes a life that has lived unconnected to the host (mother). Euthanasia is acceptable in severe disabilities once it has been established that the treatment does not alleviate the suffering or that it makes the suffering worst. In other words, euthanasia becomes a self-proclaiming circumstance that almost always requires more than a fleeting 1 month of life.
Although quite obvious to me, I will cover the fact that the maternal connection at birth would make it unthinkable for most new mother to terminate a baby (which I suspect is the whole point of your proposal like a twisted let's trying this for while before we toss it ). The whole issue is compounded by the possibility of post-partum depression as an additional layer of psychological muddying the waters.

Proposing such a solution is very misogynistic i.e. it's a males perspective solution to a problem faced by women. Abortion laws and solutions should be exclusively proposed, debated and voted by woman to be a lasting solution.

Instead of coming up with these involved loaded "theories " .. wouldnt it just be easier to discuss your actual issues with abortion?

Absolutely No, Niet, Nein.....

To me, you are saying that killing a born child is the same as legal abortion. You try, poorly, to equate the ideas that legal abortion is the same as what we now consider murder. Legal abortion does not allow a woman to abort a fetus at any time for any reason. Specifically, late abortion is highly restricted. One can not get an abortion in the third trimester "just because". The mothers life must be in danger or the fetus has some unforseen complications.

One may argue where in the gestational process an abortion should be restricted. Currently, it is during the third trimester. This is based on when we believe the fetus becomes a potentially viable person outside the womb. The question of "viability" has become mired with religious arguments. And, that is never good.

This argument is incredibly flawed.
If you think euthanasia is cheaper than an abortion, think again.
The legalities that would result from this action, fathers do have rights.. the court drama could drag on for years, then what??
We live in 2018, babies are rarely born with defects that we don’t know about ahead of time. The only exceptions being women that had no prenatal care. There’s no way these people would ever go this route.
If abortion is not accepted by the religious community, killing a live child will be satanic in thier eyes.

Isn't there a law that allows newborns to be dropped off at firehouses churches and hospitals or is that some rumor I heard?

Euthanasia is more often considered humane because it relieves pain and suffering, generally for someone already on their death bed and who would die anyway. That is markedly different than to kill a living breathing baby for the reasons you stated...the very definition of euthanasia is the "painless killing of someone who is suffering from an incurable and painful disease"...

1. Abortion- by making it affordable and educating people, this is more of a viable option. Many do not believe abortion is killing a living human being until the first breath. But even for those who believe otherwise, at least until the last trimester, it is a better option. We could work on eliminating the obstacles you mentioned instead of resorting to your proposal. You are wrong in thinking that women consider abortion less emotional or a more comfortable option....it is one made with great trepidation and angst by most. Not a decision made lightly.

2. Disabilities-modern science is able to detect most genetically caused disabilities from mental to physical...ultrasounds can see physical ones and blood tests can determine the rest. The option for the family to decide not to have the child can then be made. Some choose to accept any child; some choose to adopt out; others will consider the challenges and keep the child despite them.

3.Using " euthanasia" as a means for population control is akin genocide with babies being the group killed en masse. Again, prevention through education and having birth control available readily is a far better and less drastic measure.

I appreciate that you have put some thought into your post but you have gone to an extreme when there are options already available that are less repugnant. I also appreciate that you recognize that emotions have been a key factor in the abortion debate so I have attempted to leave them out in favor of practicality and ease of doing things at the bottom of the triangle first as opposed to jumping to the top...so to answer your question, no, I would not support such a law.

It's funny how some people react to the idea of euthanasia, but then have no real issues with abortion. My wife reacts the same way, and she has always been in full support of a woman's right to choose. Her main argument makes the distinction that while inside the woman,it's a fetus and the woman has the right to choose what happens to her body; however, when born, it's a baby with full rights of person hood. My argument has always been that this is but an arbitrary distinction created simply by what we feel comfortable with. What is the real difference between abortion and euthanasia of a newborn and why do we so viscerally react differently between the two? It's not based on reason or real evidence, but is instead based on our strong emotional responses. Using terms such as "murder" is not a supportive argument as terms such as these are only defined by convention. They are not absolute. There is no right or wrong way of how people respond to this, but I think it's a way for us to examine why we believe that certain things are ok, and other things are not ok and get beyond our emotional reactions.

No. I don’t see that your ‘good reasons’ stand as there is no consideration of the individual involved. This is the slippery slope to eugenics and sanitized humanity. 1) if the child is to be born then adoption is a solution. 2) severe disabilities offer the opportunity for learning and compassion. 3) Not sure what you mean by ‘societal issues’ from unwanted births. There are enough ‘societal issues’ from wanted births, the President of the USA being an empirical example.

No, no. How can you even suggest this.

Nobody is more pro-Roe vs Wade than I am, and I doubt anyone has less maternal instinct and despises babies more. But this is a horrible, horrible idea. At some point, even I agree it's murder. That first trimester, that fetus has pretty much the same developmental properties as most mammals.. I could post fun-filled meme asking would you abort this fetus and it's a cow or whatever- sorry vegans. I could see the argument for three trimesters- just to protect the mother if her life is endangered. After that, there's adoption and dependency on the state. It's a burden, but we don't destroy felons just for being a burden.