Let’s not split hairs. Anyone who claims the right to self-defense with lethal force claims the right to kill another human being under appropriate circumstances.
So, fundamentally, the argument is not about the “right to kill your baby” but the circumstances under which the government is allowed to interfere with that decision.
In other words, the argument is about the circumstances, not fundamental principles.
In the instance of someone attacking with violence enough to justify lethal force, they have already placed your life in the balance and in doing so violated your right to life or demonstrated clear intent to do so. We are not talking about inconveniencing you, but causing serious bodily harm or death. An imminent capital crime evokes a capital response in self-defense. Granted, the effect of that response is to bypass the courts and go straight to a lethal outcome for the perpetrator, and perhaps you might even twist that into a violation of due process.
But even in the oft-cited instance of a child conceived in rape, the child has done nothing.
It is innocent.
Justify for me the taking of its life.
What has it done worthy of capital punishment?
As for the children who are in the vast majority of the victims of abortion, they were conceived in consensual conjugations, and are not even "guilty" of being conceived in a crime. They are just
inconvenient.
That is a pretty low standard for trying to justify the taking of another human life.