Hey Pro Lifers every thought of this senario a single women developes cancer very early in her pregancy. The doctor gives her two choises abort the child and get treatment; don't abort get treatment, and the child will most likely die or suffer disabling deformities; or don't seek treatment and you will most likely before 6 months.
Of course, let's take a scenario that might happen (almost never) and apply that to the issue as a whole. How silly.
Instead, I'll answer that question with a rhetorical question:
A mother and her young child have been forced out of their home, and have fled into a region that appears, may have been used as a toxic waste dump. They can't go back where they came from, and they are getting thirsty. They happen upon a group of strangers driving a small vehicle, that say they can get the child to relative safety, but they can't take the Mom as they only have room for one small passenger. Does the Mom drink water in that region, and give it to her daughter to drink as well, does she give her daughter to the strangers, hoping for the best, or does she strangle her daughter to death because she might die anyway?
Obviously, the third choice requires her to murder her child because of what might happen.
The fact remains that taking an innocent human life is murder, no matter what you call it.
BA