Yes that's the point. You cannot remove an invited passenger on your ship unless there is another place of safety.
Outside of a mother's womb is not safe for a still developing child. Thus, no removal is allowed.
You can set a stow away adrift in a life raft.
You can, but you shouldn't, for the same reason you just gave. The open water is not a safe place for someone on a life raft.
You can throw off an invited guest who suddenly decides to try to sink the ship.
The ONLY time you are allowed to kill someone legally is when there is imminent threat to the life of yourself or someone else. If you are able to control someone to the point where you're able to maneuver them off the ship, then you shouldn't be throwing them off the ship. You should be tying them up and putting them in a secure location, to hand off to the authorities when you dock.
As for the above being an analogy, the baby in the womb isn't intentionally trying to kill the mother, and is completely innocent. It would be wrong to kill the baby, for he has done no wrong. However, if the location of the baby inside the mother's body is putting the mother's health at risk, then you move or remove the baby, but you don't stop to kill the baby. The baby will die, which is a tragedy, but your intent is to save mom, not kill the baby.
Anything inside the woman could well be considered part of the woman.
The baby is a genetically unique individual, made with DNA from both the mother AND the father.
I'm glad you recognize that it's a baby.
will eventually take on unique characteristics
The baby is already unique at the moment of conception.
How do you not know this already?
and become viable while inside.
A baby is dependent on his mother for survival long after he leaves the womb. So what's your point?
Individual rights of the infant emerge
Human rights are endowed upon an individual at the moment of conception, not at some arbitrary point afterwards. That means it's wrong to intentionally kill the baby.
and must be balanced with the mothers rights at some point.
You NEVER have to murder someone in order to save someone else's life.
There's no balancing to be done here. You don't have the authority to say that one person's life is less valuable than another's.
In the case of rape, the mother has an edge for the first half of pregnancy. Her rights supercede the infants.
Again, YOU do not have the authority to make that decision, nor does any government. That right belongs SOLELY to God. HE has said "YOU SHALL NOT MURDER." Killing the innocent is murder.
You readily agree to exceptions.
No, we don't.
A strange guy barges into your living room unwilling to obey your command to leave. He's looking around wildly and makes a move toward the entrance to your little daughter's bedroom. You take the opportunity to shoot him dead.
If you could see that he had no weapon on him, it would be murder, despite him having entered your home uninvited. If he had a gun and was pointing it at your daughter's room, sure, it wouldn't be murder. If it was at night, and the lights were off, so that you couldn't see if he had a weapon, it wouldn't be murder. But you have an obligation to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend an intruder, and only when the intruder escalates his use of force are you allowed to do the same. Now, that being said: You MAY shoot him, say, in the leg, with the intention of wounding him, to prevent him reaching your daughter's room, but you do NOT have the authority, even within your own home, to intentionally kill someone who is not an imminent threat to your life, or someone else's life.
And even if the situation were such that the man WOULD be an inmminent threat, to you or your daughter's life, shooting the man wouldn't be murder, it would be considered self defence, or defence of the innocent.
That's not an exception. That's a VALID use of force in the defence of the innocent, and thus, is not murder.
Even if he was totally innocent and someone poisoned him making him confused, you would expect to not be charged with a crime.
Yes, you would, if there was no imminent threat to someone's life, and it could be shown that lethal force was not the only option available.