Now you are calling me a liar. I cited the Talmud correctly and appropriately. In the article YOU linked to, the author, in footnote 18, gives the same reference that I gave, Sanhedrin 72b. So the actual liar is you, Marty. Are you going to apologize for slandering me?

You say "It could be interpreted as “self-defense” but that is not what it says." Then you didn't read your own source. It says:

<blockquote>They add only the further argument that such a child, being in "pursuit" of the mother's life, may be destroyed as an "aggressor" following the general principle of self-defense.</blockquote>

I asked you to support your belief that abortion to save the life of the mother is morally wrong, since your stance means that BOTH the mother and the fetus die, and thus you are saying that two deaths are morally preferable to one. I asked for no tendentious waffling, but rather an answer to my specific question. What do I get? Tendentious waffling. And no answer to my question.