I'm not defining life, or when it starts. I'm not defining human life, or when it starts. I'm simply declaring the principle that no one and absolutely nothing intrinsically has the "right" to another's property, time, thoughts, resources, etc. I'm applying this principal to pregnancy. I'm trying to maximize others ability to produce things of value to me, not at the expense of others, but through production and consensual trade.
It may only be moral to force a woman to do something that will save the baby if all of the following apply (I'm assuming she doesn't consent to raising the baby):
1. It can live independent from her body.
2. It wouldn't "harm" her more to save the baby than to allow her to destroy it. By "harm" I mean physically destroy parts of her body, both temporary and permanent.
3. The process to save the baby will take less of the mother's time than the process of her destroying it.
4. Someone is willing to pay for the operation.
5. Someone is willing to raise the baby.
If #1 isn't true, then we would have involuntary servitude by means of initiation of force. We would have to force her to make sure she provides for the baby to make sure it gets what it needs.
If #2 isn't true, then we would net be destroying her body, we would be performing an initiation of force.
If #3 isn't true, then we would be preventing her from doing what she wants to do with her own body, we would be performing an initiation of force.
If #4 isn't true, then the operation would be financed coercively, an initiation of force.
If #5 isn't true, then it would be ridiculous to momentarily save the baby-- unless you are suggesting that we force someone to raise the baby, which would be an initiation of force.
But really, initiation of force is simply a principal. Its a tool I can use to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Now, you might claim that in many cases to allow her to abort the baby would be to allow her to perform an initiation of force against the baby. Right... so we can't just look and see if there is a case of initiation of force in an action, and then declare it right or wrong. We have to look at what is performing an initiation of force against what.
Ask yourself, what will promote my goals more:
1. To force the woman to go through the process of saving the baby, so that the baby can live.
2. To allow the woman to do what she wants with her own body.
In the case of most adult human beings, I care way more that they are able to do what they want with their own bodies than I care about an infant human being. I don't intrinsically value infant humans. I don't intrinsically value adult humans. What do they do? Do they promote my goals or do they hinder my goals?
Now what we really need is an example. What point of pregnancy is your "Paris Hilton" in? Are my 1-5 true? If they are not true, then to what degree are they not met? What has "Paris Hilton" done in the past, and what do we think she will do in the future if she is forced to save the baby vs allowed to do what she wants with her own body? What have others done in the past, and what do we think they will do if we force "Paris Hilton" to save the baby vs allow her to do what she wants with her own body? What do we think this infant will do if we force her to save it?