The first point is a very good point, but is it her right to live by not be “killed” because of the child? Because I think it could be argued that her life is being directly taken by the state because of a law preventing her from having the abortion…(not sure if this is a sound statement)
Each human, born and unborn, has the right not to be killed by someone’s deliberate attack on them. Abortion is such a direct attack.
Should the mother’s life be in danger while she is pregnant, there would be a reason for it: pre-eclampsia, a car accident, etc. If she were to die, it would be because of the cause of her life’s being in danger: pre-eclampsia, injuries sustained in a car accident, etc.
In no way would the legislature which outlawed abortion be contributing to her death.
We think the legislature would have a hand in her death because we think that abortion is a viable alternative to her death.
Suppose I had an identical twin in a coma for many years, but not on life support, and my heart suddenly failed and I would die without an immediate transplant. Could I kill my twin to get her heart? No. And no one would think that the law prohibiting me from killing someone to get their heart had anything to do with my death, because we just wouldn’t think of that as an option to begin with.
ETA: if this does not answer all your questions, let me know and I will try to make it more clear.
