Maybe I see this differently because I've had to see so much death in my life (murder, cancer, brain tumors, heart attacks) ... the only people left of my family are my sister and I.
There is a difference between "kill" and "murder". There is a difference between "justice" and "mercy". The "just" thing to do may be to provide this child an incubator and keep them alive no matter what pain they endure, or regardless of whether they will ever spend a moment conscious in their entire life because they have a beating heart. The "merciful" thing may have been to let this woman and her child go back to the lord 10 weeks ago before getting to this point, and to let the father and sibling grieve and move on. Sometimes God did what was just, and sometimes He did what was merciful. We can all speculate on what God would do and on what we want to impose on this man and this woman's family. But as a woman who has a relationship with Christ, I can tell you that this isn't what I would want for myself or my child.
We have been through 40 years of unrelieved emotional flapdoodle (term coined by Mark Twain) to the effect that, if anyone anywhere finds an unborn baby inconvenient, let's all have a good cry and then murder the baby to make the emotional "feel" better. Next up, likewise, the elderly, the sick, the retarded and the handicapped. Margaret Sanger's vision of her ideal world has no place in a conservative's ideal world. Also, Margaret Sanger and her co-conspirators in murder of the inconvenient never suggested that they even believed in God much less had a relationship with God. Her murderous spirit has so permeated our society that even some conservatives, and some otherwise Godly conservatives, reflexively express Sanger's views on what is desirable public policy.
When a relative is in irreversible proximity to death from a degenerative condition such as a terminal cancer, heroic measures are not required BUT the provision of nutrition, hydration, oxygen and other palliative care is not in the category of "heroic." "Pulling the plug" or refusing nutrition or hydration or oxygen is in another category, particularly when the primary patient is a pregnant woman and, necessarily, the unborn is also a patient.
Finally, when a state enacts contrary laws that allow for the killing of the innocent, other principles apply. The unborn child, SCOTUS or no SCOTUS, is an individual human being and a person under the constitution and entitled to the equal protection of the laws under Amendment 14 to the US Constitution. SCOTUS which has imposed its infernal agenda since 1973's Roe vs. Wade and its evil progeny has a back asswards approach to such social issues and bears the guilt for a minimum of 55 million slaughtered and shares that guilt with the individual doctors and "family" decision makers who have decided to kill, usually for their own reputations or convenience. Maybe Obozo is our initial punishment for this unspeakable state of affairs.