The baby is innocent in the absolute. A killing in a war may or may not be just, but the casualty has lived and has accumulated some sin. To kill in an abortion is then a greater sin.
A mother had made a decision to get pregnant, or at least, to expose herself to a probability of pregnancy. With this comes the acceptance of risk associated with childbirth. The baby, to the contrary, had not assumed any risks. When (very rarely these days) a choice must be made, the surgeon may kill the baby only as an inintended and unavoidable side effect of protecting the life of the mother. In a wholly symmetrical case he should save the baby.
When (very rarely these days) a choice must be made, the surgeon may kill the baby only as an inintended and unavoidable side effect of protecting the life of the mother. In a wholly symmetrical case he should save the baby.
Do you not see a contradiction in what you're suggesting? Why should the surgeon in an unavoidable circumstance sacrifice the life of the fetus for the sake of the mother? If, as you say, the mother has both lived and sinned, why should she be spared in favor of the "wholly innocent never-having sinned fetus?