Just because you aren't calling for the collectivization of property doesn't mean you are not a philosophical marxist.
And I could easily take your question and turn it on its head - why is the mother's life less valuable than the fetus?? (there have been other answers to your question as well that sum up my views exactly; see the pings).
I never said that the mother's life is less valuable then the child. I said that you cannot licitly murder one person to save another. I don't place differing values upon different lives.
People like you are a threat to my health and well-being.
If anything is threatening your health and well-being, it is your own actions and lifestyle. I don't even know you, so I could hardly threaten you. You are certainly quite paranoid though.
If the fetus is developed to the point where it can survive outside the mother's womb, of course efforts should be made to save it and abortion should only be used as an absolute last resort (but that's a call for a woman and her doctor to make, not you).
Well, I disagree here, because I think all human life must be protected. You obviously have a number of exceptions to this rule.
As for the destruction of innocent lives, sorry, but it happens all the time with "ends justify the means" reasoning. Think of Iraq and Afghanistan - how many innocent lives were lost then?
No, it doesn't happen all the time. The US Armed Forcs go to great lengths to avoid taking innocent civilian life. However, some civilian death is an inevitable side effect of any war. The important thing to note is that the cvilian deaths are not the intended effect of the prosecution of war. At least since the WWII terror bombing of Germany and Japan, western countries have not practiced mass warfare on defenseless civilian populations. However, the death of civilians is part of the reason most people feel that war must have a serious justification for it to be used by a State - the whole Just War theory - the good ends of the war must produce something better than the evils of the war itself.
And if a Sept 11 scenario were to repeat itself, most people would consider it acceptable to shoot down a plane and kill everyone on board rather than risk that plane crashing into a building and killing 1000s more. By your logic, it would be better to just let it crash, since that's the "natural outcome".
The situation is not comparable to a pregnancy, since an unborn child is not an agressor liable to measures of self-defense. Nor is a plane deliberatley being flown into a building something "natural".
In any case, the intention in shooting down the plane would be to prevent the use of the plane to cause mass homicides, not to kill everyone aboard, which is an unfortunate side effect. The intention in an abortion is always and everywhere the death of the unborn child.
Moreover, the justification for shooting down the plane only holds good if there is a moral certainty that one is preventing greater destruction from allowing it to stay aloft. For example, a plane hijacked over the middle of the ocean or desert hardly presents a threat to a densely populated city. There is certainly a better chance the crew will regain control than there is that the plane will be used as a bomb. Therefore, one could not licitly shoot it down until it is actually an apparent threat. Thus, one might warn the plane hijacked over the ocean that if it comes within 5 miles of any settled area, it will be shot down, but one may not shoot it down willy-nilly in disregard to the lives of those aboard.