[SoothingDave]

You cannot licitly directly kill an unborn child to save the life of the mother, even if the only other possible result is that both die. Life is risky, and we should be prepared to move on when the risks go against us, not committing murder to extend it.

Don't we have a right to self-defense? Including the taking of another's life who is a direct threat? (Obviously if less-than-lethal methods are available, we would choose them.)

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Don't we have a right to self-defense? Including the taking of another's life who is a direct threat? (Obviously if less-than-lethal methods are available, we would choose them.)

The unborn child is not "threatening" the mother. If the mother's life is at risk, it is not because she is pregnant, but because of complications arising from the pregnancy or other external factors. The complications and external factors need to be treated, and not by attacking the child, as if it is an agressor. No one ever died from simply being pregnant.