Is abortion ever justified?

[Des]

Yes, the mother and the child both have an absolute right to life. Therefore, if one is threatening the life of the other, that person can justly defend itself, namely, the mother, just as in any other circumstance where the person, intentionally or not, is endangering the life of another person.

I wasn’t merely talking about a right to life. I was stating his right to life and his right to be in that situation as she herself was. And when does the baby get to defend his life from the mothers intent to kill him?
You’re taking sides here is what you’re doing and your side of the argument is even worse whereby you are intending to kill an innocent human being. The child has zero control over his situation. He isn’t doing anything through his own actions.

Again, the baby has a ‘right’ to grow inside of a mother’s body through the natural means of conception. If something were to go wrong where his presence was in a position to kill the mother then it is not her place to say her life takes precedence over his and have him sacrificed for her own sake. She cannot make that decision for him. Except for the principle of double effect, there is no other reason for an unborn child to die where the mother’s life is endangered.

just as in any other circumstance where the person, intentionally or not, is endangering the life of another person.

Which ‘other circumstances’ in life are equal to this where an ignorant person who through no actions of his own is being blamed for the eventual death of another? And give me an example where this individual’s death is premeditated on with intent.

 

[c659smith]

Yes, the mother and the child both have an absolute right to life. Therefore, if one is threatening the life of the other, that person can justly defend itself, namely, the mother, just as in any other circumstance where the person, intentionally or not, is endangering the life of another person.
Well, you can call me a pro-abortion advocate if you want, what the hell. That doesn’t change the fact that I’m not. I’m simply for the equal right to life of both mother and baby.

Tell me when and where in todays medical world would the baby in the mother’s womb threaten the life of the mother that is so profound and inevitable that all modern medical courses of action have been taken and still makes the death of the mother a fact in making such a choice on the mother’s part till the age of viability where the baby can be safely removed and have a chance at life?

What we have here is a rationalization of murder.

That is like I do not wear seat belts because if the car is on fire or submerged and I am knocked unconcious I would not be able to get out of the car.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

The baby has no ability to defend himself or herself. She or he also can present no direct intentional deliberate threat. We are justified in wounding or killing someone who is trying to kill us. Actually trying to kill us. You know, gun in hand, knife in hand, bomb in hand, speeding car speeding at us with steering wheel in assailant’s hand. What baby can do that?

I think you are equating “rights” with “power” and no baby has power equal to a grown human being who is determined to kill that baby. This country used to stand for the defense of those who were being threatened by stronger parties. Now we want to be the ones people need to be protected from. That’s progress, I guess. Oy.

Your point is well-taken, which is why I state quite often that, in spite of the disastrous ruling of the Supreme Court, nobody has the “right” to terminate an INNOCENT human life. As many times as I’ve read the Constitution, I can vouch for you that it’s not in there.

While I may disagree with the action taken by the woman I cited earlier, her religious convictions (Orthodox Judiasm) clashed with ours. In this case, she followed HER religious teachings, just as we might expect a Roman Catholic to follow OUR religious teachings.

Also, I wonder if it is necessary for “intent” to be present in order for someone to defend himself or herself. In the case of that woman, she knew her life was in definite jeopardy, considering how horribly overweight she was, along with high cholesterol levels, etc etc. It was only when her life was in direct jeopardy that she finally came to her senses, started eating an intelligent diet, started exercising, and eventually lost a lot of weight (she is now QUITE attractive, too!). Had she not made those changes, we probably would have had to sit Shiva for her. (Hebrew terms, folks).

Yes, her unborn baby lost his or her life (impossible to know which, at that early point). But in doing so, she learned a harsh lesson, and got a second chance at life. This time, she is doing everything right, and I’m proud of her (even though I do not support her decision to abort, I can at least understand her basis for doing it).

We can go on and on over this for the next thousand years, but I think there are other things to discuss in the interim.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

But who are you to say it isn’t?

And actually I’m not the one stating this like some sola scriptura believer. We know this verse was used by the Apostle to describe Jesus birth correct. The Dogmas of the Church states Mary was Ever Virgin. Logically, that passage meant that a young unwed virgin woman would conceive.

I’ll tell you what: Go to ANY Orthodox Rabbi, and ask that Rabbi to give you an accurate translation of that prophecy. Mind you, that translation is likely to be much more accurate than one from just about any Priest. While Priests may or may not study Latin, the surely do NOT study the Hebrew language!

While you’re at it, why not ask the same Rabbi for a correct translation of the Fiftrh Commandment? After all, do you want to know the truth, or not? If it is the truth that you seek, then you must get it from an authoritative source. Otherwise, you are making up your own story, and that is not acceptable. As Jesus said “You shall know the truth, and the Truth shall set you free”. Either the Prophecy called for a Virgin Birth, or it did not. (It is true that, in those days, young women KEPT their virginity. To do otherwise would bring shame upon an entire family. So, while Mary was obviously quite young, that does not mean that she “had” to be a virgin (prophetically speaking, of course) at the time of conception of her Son.

Please let me know what you find out from the Rabbi. However, if you decide to NOT seek an answer for this translation from a Rabbi, then perhaps it would be better if we simply ended this discussion, as further talk would not produce any results other than more disagreement. Logically, there would be no reason to continue in that case.

 

[c659smith]

Your point is well-taken, which is why I state quite often that, in spite of the disastrous ruling of the Supreme Court, nobody has the “right” to terminate an INNOCENT human life. As many times as I’ve read the Constitution, I can vouch for you that it’s not in there.

While I may disagree with the action taken by the woman I cited earlier, her religious convictions (Orthodox Judiasm) clashed with ours. In this case, she followed HER religious teachings, just as we might expect a Roman Catholic to follow OUR religious teachings.

Also, I wonder if it is necessary for “intent” to be present in order for someone to defend himself or herself. In the case of that woman, she knew her life was in definite jeopardy, considering how horribly overweight she was, along with high cholesterol levels, etc etc. It was only when her life was in direct jeopardy that she finally came to her senses, started eating an intelligent diet, started exercising, and eventually lost a lot of weight (she is now QUITE attractive, too!). Had she not made those changes, we probably would have had to sit Shiva for her. (Hebrew terms, folks).

Yes, her unborn baby lost his or her life (impossible to know which, at that early point). But in doing so, she learned a harsh lesson, and got a second chance at life. This time, she is doing everything right, and I’m proud of her (even though I do not support her decision to abort, I can at least understand her basis for doing it).

We can go on and on over this for the next thousand years, but I think there are other things to discuss in the interim.

I do not understand where it is part of the Jewish Religion to abort the baby.

Where do you cite this revelation?

Did the abortion make her righteous?

The Jews, ortrodox included received the same commandment of thou shall not murder.

I would like to see the doctor’s line to whom is not an abortionist state medical fact that carrying the baby to viability with modern medical care for both the mother and baby definitely would still have caused the mother’s death.

I doubt sincerely that there is anywhere in Jewish scripture demanding to kill the baby esspecially without a definitive and resounding result of the woman being pregnant would cause her death.

Sir not in today’s day and age.

All women have the possibiltity of death due to being pregnant. Does the Jewish religion require them to have an abortion?

 

[ceciliatherese]

Tell me when and where in todays medical world would the baby in the mother’s womb threaten the life of the mother that is so profound and inevitable that all modern medical courses of action have been taken and still makes the death of the mother a fact in making such a choice on the mother’s part till the age of viability where the baby can be safely removed and have a chance at life?

What we have here is a rationalization of murder.

That is like I do not wear seat belts because if the car is on fire or submerged and I am knocked unconcious I would not be able to get out of the car.

For example, in the case of ryecroft, a lady who has posted in this thread.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Let’s take this one at a time:

I do not understand where it is part of the Jewish Religion to abort the baby.

Reply:
Jews are expected to defend themselves. I suggest you consider reading up on the matter, and ask a few Orthodox Rabbis as to why they are supposed to do so.

You:
Where do you cite this revelation?
Reply: From the Old Testament, of course. Where else do you expect Jewish laws to come from? Observant Jews do not accept anything from the New Testament as being valid. Many of them will even suggest that Jesus never lived, and will cite historical evidence for that assertion. I suggest you go to the Judaism forum on Delphi.com, and ask your questions there. They have many learned Jewish scholars, and can more correctly answer your questions.

You:
Did the abortion make her righteous?
Reply: No, but it saved her life, and she was later able to have two incredibly healthy twins, who can look to her and her husband to bring them up quite nicely. If she had not gone along with the medical suggestion of her doctors, she probably would not be alive today. Period.

You:
The Jews, ortrodox included received the same commandment of thou shall not murder.
Reply: Correct. That IS the Fifth Commandment, It is only through mistranslations, made by unknowing people, that it has been changed by human beings.

You:
I would like to see the doctor’s line to whom is not an abortionist state medical fact that carrying the baby to viability with modern medical care for both the mother and baby definitely would still have caused the mother’s death.
Reply: Sorry, but I am not about to reveal to you or anyone else the name of the Doctor, the woman, nor her locale. That, quite honestly, is none of your business.

You:
I doubt sincerely that there is anywhere in Jewish scripture demanding to kill the baby
esspecially without a definitive and resounding result of the woman being pregnant would cause her death.

Reply:
Then I suggest you ask an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, so he can give you the proper “cite”.

You:
Sir not in today’s day and age.
Reply: Yes, in this day and age. The pregnancy would have stressed her body to a point where her heart (at that time it was in horrible shape!) would not have been able to tolerate the additional stress. Let’s face it: Pregnancy DOES tax the human system (even more than Obama wants to tax us taxpayers!).

You:
All women have the possibiltity of death due to being pregnant. Does the Jewish religion require them to have an abortion?

Reply: If the pregnancy is definitely expected to result in the death of the mother, yes, she is required… under the teachings of Orthodox Judaism… to abort.

We may not like it, but that is within their teachings, and they have every right to those teachings. I’d say, in fact, that they are AS entitled to their beliefs as we are to ours.

When a Jewish mother becomes pregnant, it is often a great source of joy. They will, generally, do everything they can to have that baby, and give that child a good start in life. They consider it to be a Mitzvot, it is that highly regarded. Her Doctor was also Jewish, and was a close friend of the family for many years. She had no reason whatsoever to distrust her doctor, and that is the foundation of a good doctor/patient relationship.

And please, don’t come back with something like “Well, I would have done thus and such because…”. Frankly, what you or anyone else would have done is irrelevant. What is important is what SHE did, and neither you… nor I… have any business sitting in judgement of her (which is exactly what you seem to be doing here).

Have a nice day.

 

[ceciliatherese]

I wasn’t merely talking about a right to life. I was stating his right to life and his right to be in that situation as she herself was. And when does the baby get to defend his life from the mothers intent to kill him?
You’re taking sides here is what you’re doing and your side of the argument is even worse whereby you are intending to kill an innocent human being. The child has zero control over his situation. He isn’t doing anything through his own actions.

Again, the baby has a ‘right’ to grow inside of a mother’s body through the natural means of conception. If something were to go wrong where his presence was in a position to kill the mother then it is not her place to say her life takes precedence over his and have him sacrificed for her own sake. She cannot make that decision for him. Except for the principle of double effect, there is no other reason for an unborn child to die where the mother’s life is endangered.

Which ‘other circumstances’ in life are equal to this where an ignorant person who through no actions of his own is being blamed for the eventual death of another? And give me an example where this individual’s death is premeditated on with intent.

Unfortunately, sometimes a mother has to kill an innocent human being to defend her own inevitable right to life. If it is certain that she is going to die, that is two lives in the balance. Each has equal value. However, as one is threatening the life of the other, that one must be stopped to protect that other life.
Of course the baby has a right to grow in its mother and of course it has a right to life. but so does the mother. And when the mother is going to die because the baby is killing her, intentional or not, the mother has a right to defend herself.
There are most likely no circumstances in life that are equal to this, as the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is very unique. But why should this be different than in any other situation where a person is threatening another person’s life? You’re basically saying that the baby’s life must take predominance over the mother’s life in every circumstance, simply because he does not know what he’s doing. Those are not equal rights.

 

[Disciple96]

I’ll tell you what: Go to ANY Orthodox Rabbi, and ask that Rabbi to give you an accurate translation of that prophecy. Mind you, that translation is likely to be much more accurate than one from just about any Priest. While Priests may or may not study Latin, the surely do NOT study the Hebrew language!

Many priests do study Hebrew, PGK. Many. Fr. Mitch Pacwa knows many languages, aso did our late Pope John Paul II and also our current Pope. I hear what sounds like contempt in your words, I don’t know if it’s really there, since I’m reading and not hearing your actual voice. Is this something you are struggling with, the authority of the Church?

 

[Disciple96]

Unfortunately, sometimes a mother has to kill an innocent human being to defend her own inevitable right to life. If it is certain that she is going to die, that is two lives in the balance. Each has equal value. However, as one is threatening the life of the other, that one must be stopped to protect that other life.

That’s not what the Church teaches now or has ever taught. Someone trying to kill you is not innocent. Unless you’re trying to kill them and they are innocently trying to protect themselves.

But the teaching of the Church is so crystal clear on this. And you either accept it, because it is the teaching of the Church and is true, or you do not. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is the teaching of the Church and it is true. It is one of the many teachings we accept as Catholics. This is how we remain Catholic and in communion with the Church.

And it is not a minor teaching but is foundational. The authority of the teaching Church is foundational and of her teachings, the teachings on life are bedrock.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is never justified. Killing to defend yourself has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, the object of which is always the death of an absolutely innocent being, a baby, a defenseless, harmless baby.

I cannot imagine killing a baby. I had a miscarriage once and I was very sick during my pregnancy. But it never occurred to me to kill the baby. If the miscarriage hadn’t happened, who knows how things would’ve gone. But I didn’t kill him or her. This is not to heap blame on anyone. I’m just saying, I’m not speaking entirely theoretically here. And I wasn’t Catholic then either. But what’s that got to do with it? Killing is killing.

Do you think that someone who is killed cares what religion the killer is? Or if the killer’s religion says it’s okay?

 

[ceciliatherese]

That’s not what the Church teaches now or has ever taught. Someone trying to kill you is not innocent. Unless you’re trying to kill them and they are innocently trying to protect themselves.

But the teaching of the Church is so crystal clear on this. And you either accept it, because it is the teaching of the Church and is true, or you do not. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is the teaching of the Church and it is true. It is one of the many teachings we accept as Catholics. This is how we remain Catholic and in communion with the Church.

And it is not a minor teaching but is foundational. The authority of the teaching Church is foundational and of her teachings, the teachings on life are bedrock.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is never justified. Killing to defend yourself has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, the object of which is always the death of an absolutely innocent being, a baby, a defenseless, harmless baby.

I cannot imagine killing a baby. I had a miscarriage once and I was very sick during my pregnancy. But it never occurred to me to kill the baby. If the miscarriage hadn’t happened, who knows how things would’ve gone. But I didn’t kill him or her. This is not to heap blame on anyone. I’m just saying, I’m not speaking entirely theoretically here. And I wasn’t Catholic then either. But what’s that got to do with it? Killing is killing.

Do you think that someone who is killed cares what religion the killer is? Or if the killer’s religion says it’s okay?

I did not say the baby was ‘trying’ to kill the mother. I said it was unintentionally.
Yes, killing to defend yourself does have something to do with abortion. In the rare case in which a mother would definitely die if she carried her baby to term, she has a right to kill in self-defense. Of course, she could also choose to die so that her baby might live, something that would be very admirable, like St. Gianna Molla, but something that a person is not morally required to do.
I don’t know why you’re asking me about killers and their religion. I’m Catholic, same as you.

 

[Disciple96]

I did not say the baby was ‘trying’ to kill the mother. I said it was unintentionally.
Yes, killing to defend yourself does have something to do with abortion. In the rare case in which a mother would definitely die if she carried her baby to term, she has a right to kill in self-defense. Of course, she could also choose to die so that her baby might live, something that would be very admirable, like St. Gianna Molla, but something that a person is not morally required to do.
I don’t know why you’re asking me about killers and their religion. I’m Catholic, same as you.

Well, that was last question for all the others who have also been posting on here about this, and they are from a variety of faiths.

But if you’re Catholic, same as me, then you accept the teaching of the Church on this. And we all know what that is. It’s what I wrote up there. And killing a baby can never in any way be in self-defense. It is not acceptable at any time for any reason in any time or in any place. That is the Catholic teaching. Accepting that is being Catholic. Rejecting that is not being Catholic. Not an informed Catholic with a well-formed conscience who is in full communion with the Church, anyway.

So…are you a Catholic, same as me?

 

[DLClark]

Let us base our reasoning on the Scriptures and not on man’s reasoning. God’s point of view on abortion should be our point of view.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Many priests do study Hebrew, PGK. Many. Fr. Mitch Pacwa knows many languages, aso did our late Pope John Paul II and also our current Pope. I hear what sounds like contempt in your words, I don’t know if it’s really there, since I’m reading and not hearing your actual voice. Is this something you are struggling with, the authority of the Church?

No contempt. Merely exasperation.
Two Popes and one Priest does not exactly constitute an overall ringing endorsement of learning the Hebrew language. Consider how many Priests there are around the world, and then you have an idea what I’m trying to say. Most will know the local language, of course, Many will know Latin (although I’ve never been to a Mass in Latin), some will know Greek. In Russia, they know Russian. In China, they know Chinese. I think you follow me in that regard.
Further, while it is clear that some DO learn Hebrew, they do not make it their life’s study. It is not what I’d call a specialty, in their case, as there would be very few times they would use the Hebrew language.

Only by going to an Orthodox Rabbi will someone be able to get an accurate translation of anything that is in the Hebrew language.

I’ve made that suggestion, Now it is up to the other person to either follow it, or throw in the towel on this discussion. I can discuss thigs with anyone as long as he or she is being logical and willing to find the truth. However, once it is obvious that someone does not care enough to find the truth (and do whatever is necessary to find it!). then I have other things to do with my limited time.

I know this may sound a bit strong, but wasting time in profitless pursuits is not something I care to do (especially at my age!).

Take care.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Well, that was last question for all the others who have also been posting on here about this, and they are from a variety of faiths.

But if you’re Catholic, same as me, then you accept the teaching of the Church on this. And we all know what that is. It’s what I wrote up there. And killing a baby can never in any way be in self-defense. It is not acceptable at any time for any reason in any time or in any place. That is the Catholic teaching. Accepting that is being Catholic. Rejecting that is not being Catholic. Not an informed Catholic with a well-formed conscience who is in full communion with the Church, anyway.

So…are you a Catholic, same as me?

Comment: There are Catholics, and then there are Roman Catholics, and then there are…whatever they want to be on that day of ther week.
Would any of us consider Teddy Kennedy to be an upstanding example of a Roman Catholic? Based on his horrible voting record on the issue of abortion, I’m glad he is no longer (at last report) a Knight of Columbus. Until and unless he changes his position on the issue, he does not deserve to come back to the Order, either. After all, what Priest can possibly say that Ted Kennedy is a “practical Catholic, in union with the Holy See” while he is still casting votes on the pro-abortion side of the issue.

Then there is, sadly enough, Carol Shea-Porter, congresswoman from my part of NH, and a member of my own Parish. When she first got elected, I was stunned to see my own Pastor congratulate her in front of the members of the Parish! I asked him “why” he even did such a thing, and his reply was that he would congratulate anyone from his parish who got elected to high office. While I still highly respect my former pastor, I will forever disagree with him on that one.

Yet, Carol continues to cast votes that are as bad as Ted Kennedy’s. I cautioned people at that time that voting for her was the same as voting for Nancy Pelosi to take over the House of Representatives, and that has proved to be correct…so far. Anyone who votes to grant equally protected status to people with various sexual perversions has got to have a few screws loose…somewhere! But that’s an issue for another thread.

 

[Disciple96]

Well, I know there are people of various types who claim to be Catholic. But that does not mean they are Catholic. There aren’t different types of Catholic, not liberal, not traditional, not conservative. There is only “is Catholic” and “is not Catholic”. Either you’re in communion with the Church or you aren’t. Faithful to the Church or not.

No gray areas. Only is and is not. Faithful or not. Adhering to the Truth or not. Follower of Christ or not.

That’s all there is to it. The rest is only smoke and mirrors and camouflage. Folks may fool each other and fool themselves. But none of us can fool God.

 

[c659smith]

No contempt. Merely exasperation.
Two Popes and one Priest does not exactly constitute an overall ringing endorsement of learning the Hebrew language. Consider how many Priests there are around the world, and then you have an idea what I’m trying to say. Most will know the local language, of course, Many will know Latin (although I’ve never been to a Mass in Latin), some will know Greek. In Russia, they know Russian. In China, they know Chinese. I think you follow me in that regard.
Further, while it is clear that some DO learn Hebrew, they do not make it their life’s study. It is not what I’d call a specialty, in their case, as there would be very few times they would use the Hebrew language.

Only by going to an Orthodox Rabbi will someone be able to get an accurate translation of anything that is in the Hebrew language.

I’ve made that suggestion, Now it is up to the other person to either follow it, or throw in the towel on this discussion. I can discuss thigs with anyone as long as he or she is being logical and willing to find the truth. However, once it is obvious that someone does not care enough to find the truth (and do whatever is necessary to find it!). then I have other things to do with my limited time.

I know this may sound a bit strong, but wasting time in profitless pursuits is not something I care to do (especially at my age!).

Take care.

Tell me was Jesus Christ and the early Christians Jewish and did they speak the various language of Hebrew which by the way had many different translations as there were many different sects throughout the world including in Jerusulem itself.

When did Christians consider themselves or the Jews consider them removed from the Jewish religion and not another sect.

Tell me when was the final approved scripture of the Tora made (year) to include the numerous changes?

Tell me when was the final version of the Catholic bible translation of the Old Testament made.

Then tell me who were the translators.

Sir, the answer to these questions will surprise you.

You may find yourself in the wrong site to state a Rabbi knows more of the Jewish(Hebrew) language.

 

[ceciliatherese]

Well, that was last question for all the others who have also been posting on here about this, and they are from a variety of faiths.

But if you’re Catholic, same as me, then you accept the teaching of the Church on this. And we all know what that is. It’s what I wrote up there. And killing a baby can never in any way be in self-defense. It is not acceptable at any time for any reason in any time or in any place. That is the Catholic teaching. Accepting that is being Catholic. Rejecting that is not being Catholic. Not an informed Catholic with a well-formed conscience who is in full communion with the Church, anyway.

So…are you a Catholic, same as me?

What happened to the idea that abortion was wrong because of moral and logical reasons, not because of religion? I was under the impression that religion merely motivated the pro life person…

 

[c659smith]

What happened to the idea that abortion was wrong because of moral and logical reasons, not because of religion? I was under the impression that religion merely motivated the pro life person…

I agree abortion is wrong for moral and logical reasons.

I am answering the post on the statement that Jewish scripture states it is ok when it clearly does not.

I could quote scripure for the answer but did not. I only put forth the argument that translation of the Jewish Bible Tora or Old Testament was translated and approved which had numerous accounts and versions by the Jews after the Catholics tranlated it first. Which leaves their interpetation and deletions suspect in order to disclaim Christianity which was converting the majority of their people at the time.

There is plenty of places in the Old Testament where God knew you when in the womb.

Further more God told the Jewish people in many battles to kill every man , woman, child, and livestock in their conqueest to attain the Promised land but I would not attribute that to an OK for Abortion or to committ such attrocities today.

Jerwish translation also states that if a man or woman caused the death of a baby in the womb that the perpetrator owed the father of the baby in the womb money and was not sentenced to death and that is many of their pro-choice views.

However if checking other quotes that if a woman was found to be an adulterous and pregnant. The sentence was death and was not carried out till after the birth of the child. Why would they wait if the child in the womb was not a human life with a soul?

The Jewish translation uses the word (miscarriages) to support their views on abortions.

The self defense issue does not work today with medical science as an excuse morally or religiously.

The Jews also did human and animal sacrafices on the era to which they translate from and am sure from a moral issue they would not say the tora told me so.

 

[Des]

Unfortunately, sometimes a mother has to kill an innocent human being to defend her own inevitable right to life. If it is certain that she is going to die, that is two lives in the balance. Each has equal value. However, as one is threatening the life of the other, that one must be stopped to protect that other life and put her out of her misery.

The baby has a right to be in that body even if it’s stuck somewhere that could cause death to the mother. And even then, there are other means to save the woman without intentionally destroying the child. One has to ask, what put him in that situation? Maybe the mother’s body wasn’t doing what it was supposed to be doing in pushing it along and it has nothing to do with the fetus. So I can come back and tell you that the mother is the one killing him first. Her body was doing this indirectly.
Also, by your rational, a mother cannot take cancer treatments since it could harm and kill the fetus. I’m going to use your logic now and say that the Doctors have every right to kill her so the baby can live. After all, then the mothers unintentional actions would be killing the unborn child and he does have a right to defend himself. So yes or no. Do you agree with this scenario? That a doctor, regardless if the mother protests or not, has the right to defend the unborn child from the radiation treatment and murder the woman in your so called ‘self defense’ reasoning?

Or how about a woman who drinks and smokes enough to cause her baby harm but won’t stop the habbit? Should we kill her and take the baby from her belly?

There are most likely no circumstances in life that are equal to this, as the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is very unique.

Correct, that’s why the ‘murdering someone to save your life’ reason won’t work here.

But why should this be different than in any other situation where a person is threatening another person’s life?

Because someone threatening a person’s life comes with intent and only then is defending oneself justified. I know of no other reason where someone can directly kill another when the other person is not ‘trying’ to murder him or her and if there was, it surely wouldn’t be under natural circumstances like a mother and her unborn child.

You’re basically saying that the baby’s life must take predominance over the mother’s life in every circumstance, simply because he does not know what he’s doing. Those are not equal rights.

I never said any such thing. I am saying both lives have no right to directly kill one another with intent as nature itself put them both in that predicament. It can’t get more simpler than that.

And if I said that the baby’s life was ‘always’ favorable over the mothers then I wouldn’t have mentioned ‘the principle of double effect’ earlier.