I don't want to engage in a merry-go-round of argument, so let this response be my last.

"No one has the right to steal or use another persons body, even if their life depends on it."

Is it stealing or borrowing? The fact remains that the mother's freedom of choice is competing with the fetus' right to life. It is impossible to reconcile the two interests. In every other case, there is always the possibility of intervention; but in the case of pregnancy, there is not. That's what makes it unique.

Interestingly, if you take someone else's property to save a life, the law will not punish you for theft. It will require you to pay for any damage to the item you took, but the law recognizes that the interest in life has higher priority than a property interest.

"You haven’t responded to the 10 year old rape victim. If you think it’s reasonable for her to go through the trauma of childbirth that her body cannot handle ..."

I addressed that issue directly. Reread the paragraph beginning, "Where the mother's own life is imperiled ..."

"Or with Kate Cox."

Your narrative is a little confusing. Later on, you say, "No one was sure of exactly what point her life would be in danger, if she would just lose her internal organs or die." Again, if the mother's life is imperiled, under this analysis, it should be her decision. As for the potential suffering and death of the fetus: I should remind you that I am not speaking morally, but legally. The question is, what should the law be, under our legal framework? Under such an analysis, probability is not certainty and mercy-killing is murder.

Law cannot anticipate every situation, and there are times when following the law down the line produces the wrong outcome. That's why kings and queens, presidents, governors and other chief executives have for centuries had the right to set aside legal judgments. There is a famous British case from the 18th century in which two men in a lifeboat and in desperate circumstances killed a third who was sick and was going to die anyway in order to eat him and stay alive. They were unexpectedly rescued and charged and convicted of murder. The court expressed regret, saying that it could not possibly understand the difficulty of their situation, but had no choice but to find them guilty. This conviction was subsequently set aside by the Crown.

We are not discussing morality, but law.

"...under current laws doctors aren’t insured if they make these decisions."

Then the laws should be clarified and doctors should be covered.