But since the law doesn't recognize the unborn baby as a person, it seemingly follows that legally there is no "another" to defend and so those defenses don't apply. (Please understand that I'm addressing only the legal issue - morally and ethically, the unborn baby IS a human person, abortion IS wrong and OUGHT to be stopped, and it is morally and ethically praiseworthy to practice civil disobedience in defense of unborn persons.)
I understand that the principle of necessity defense can be applied even when the otherwise-illegal action was intended to defend a substantial value other than a human life, e.g. to protect a million dollar lottery ticket, a Stradivarius violin, a valuable art collection, an important document, or a prized dog. Am I (legally) correct on that point?