Twist the scenario however you’d like, fine the perpetrators have guns on them and are an immediate threat to your life. Same question.Someone breaking into your home doesn't necessarily guarantee you the right to shoot and kill them. Self defense requires the admission that 1) you killed someone but 2) the level of action you took was necessary to protect yourself from harm. Any action taken after the threat has stopped is no longer self defense. Murder is never OK, but it is justifiable to use force to defend life. Even lethal force. Ultimately the second amendment is a right of self defense.
With regards to abortion and self defense, the discussion usually misses the point. In the case of a pregnant woman having cancer, it would not be immoral for her to undergo chemotherapy to treat the cancer. Even though the treatment would likely result in the death of her unborn child. But it would be immoral to have an abortion prior to undergoing treatment for the cancer. While the outcome is the same, the path taken to get there determines whether or not something is right or wrong.
You lost me on your second thought. Either way you know the clear choice is end the pregnancy or die. Why does it matter if that happens through chemo or at a clinic? Seems like you aren’t at the extreme I’ve heard from some others as you clearly are in favor of the mother getting treatment but nobody else answered my question about the mother having 3 other kids. The extreme of this position believes those kids should grow up without a mom.
These are the same people who will trumpet mental health over common sense gun legislation (yes, they are both a problem). But F it, let’s force a family to lose its mother because of a political ideal, I’m sure that will do wonders for the psyche of impacted kids.
By the way I respect your approach and thoughts (Suudy too), some others here are quick to get emotional and start throwing around insults.