The only time YOU would be in favor of life is if you had a personal interest in that life. In other words, you had something personal to gain from that life.Yes, the GUARDIAN allowed life support to continue while suitable organ donees could be found; a matter of a few days. In the woman's case, her wishes and the authority of the guardian's authority were brushed aside in favor of a fetus that has no rights, in a period when RvW grants the state no authority to enforce state interest.
Hmmm...RvW originated in TX too; maybe we can get a similar ruling concerning state's interest prior to the 3rd trimester. Could invalidate a whole host of anti-choice laws in one fell swoop. Wouldn't that be grand?
For example, if an organ or tissue could be harvested later on in utero that would help you with a medical condition, you'd be in favor of allowing the in utero baby to live longer.
It would all depend on what YOU could get from the other.(If no personal advantage to you from the other life, then "KILL IT!"...I call this attitude 'The Katie Phenomenon')
Heck, you'd suddenly be interested in allowing the preborn baby to live longer even if you wouldn't get a medical advantage. For example, if tissue from the little human would make your bulbous, flabby, dangling ass more firm you'd suddenly be for life.
You're a self-interested dweeb that way.