I found your post interesting.
Who made the decision that it is morally acceptable to take cancer treatment to save the mother? The Church?If even one in a million dies..is it still not death?
Cancer treatment is taken to fight the cancer (NOT to kill the baby). Often the treatment does not kill the baby and sometimes it does not even really do much damage to the baby. But sometimes it can end up making the baby sick enough that it dies. But the child is NOT “terminated”. The doctors did not intend that the baby die, and in fact they did what they could to keep the baby alive and healthy. All such cancer treatments are morally acceptable - even if the odds are very high that the baby might die as a result of the drug or other therapy that is done to cure the mom.
But if a woman supposedly will die unless the baby is killed (the baby itself is causing the woman’s health problem or the presence of the baby is making the health problem so serious that mom will die unless the baby is removed from the womb), then the act of intentionally killing the baby so that the mom won’t die is always immoral. The doctor INTENDS to kill the baby (to benefit the mother’s health). This is ALWAYS immoral. It is simply ALWAYS immoral to intentionally abort an unborn child.