... and all I am trying to say is that the difference between your position and "I want an abortion because it'd be inconvenient for me to have a baby" is a matter of degree. Both cases require sacrifice on the part of the mother (granted one a immeasurably more than the other) but I thought the whole gist of the pro-life movement was that the sacrifice or inconvenience is irrelevant; the child has a right to life, period.
What position is that? That it is permissable to perform a procedure to remove the danger to the mother, even if there is a risk that the child could die, as long as the intent is not to kill? Such an act would be covered under double effect and self defense, and would not in any way be elective. But under Texas law, it would be an abortion.
Each person has the right to self defense, using the least force possible.
You are equating self defense and intentional murder with no threat to the one killing. There went the homicide laws.