Short circuiting the "kill vs let die" argument

In many cases over the last few months I've seen PL try to draw a distinction between killing verses letting someone die, so I'm going to propose two hypotheticals to prove that it doesn't matter because you will still be against it.

1. In the future, a method of removing a fetus is invented that can harmlessly remove it from the uterus, whether it is viable or not. As an alternative to abortion, this procedure is offered as an alternative to D&E or miferistone. It is proven to be completely harmless to the fetus. The fetus is then allowed to die naturally, without chemicals or any physical injuries to it.

Is this morally acceptable, compared to current abortion procedures? I'm guessing not, because it still results in the death of the fetus.

My point is that even when the fetus is not killed at all and instead dies naturally, you will still be against it. So the line of reasoning is moot, since you are against both sides.

And now the second hypothetical

2. also in the future, a method of harmlessly removing the fetus is developed, but pro life supporters argue that it still results in the death of the fetus, and thus is immoral. As a compromise, doctors develop a compromise: indefinite cryogenic storage of the fetus after removal. The fetus will not develop further than it is, but will also not be terminated. It stays in cryogenic suspension indefinitely.

This one im less sure that PL will be against, but I suspect they will. Because it interrupts the natural birth cycle and prevents birth. But here's where I'm stuck, because I thought that they don't like being called pro birth, yet to argue that this is immoral is to argue that the only acceptable outcome is birth at all costs, mother be damned.

Does anyone have thoughts on these two scenarios?