It really isn't. In both cases there is the identical desire to define some arbitrary point in time, before which all that transpired is mere "history", having no meaningful bearing on anything after.

Which makes no sense, of course. You might just as well answer a "you break it, you buy it" sign in a shop with the claim that whatever breakage may or may not have happened, it's well in the past now, and there's no point trying on that basis to ascribe any kind of responsibility for the current situation to anyone except the shopkeeper, who clearly sees no problem with trying to sell broken merchandise.

That doesn't strike me as an argument that would, or should, get anyone very far.