Ok, I'll engage you on this one, your position at least seems internally consistent.
Let's play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you. You recently found out that she even exists - you didn't know you had a sister until CPS told you she's your responsibility.
An action that risks your life could possibly save her... Let's say a liver transplant. It has to be you, you're her only living family member. And because of that, you'll also be responsible for her - you can put her up for adoption when this is all over, but you're still on the hook for the medical bills whether this works or not.
She's guaranteed to die if you don't give her the transplant, and you would almost certainly recover quickly on your own.
If you go through with the transplant, she has a slim chance to live, and an even slimmer one to have a decent quality of life.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky - at best you'll see a lengthy and expensive recovery, after missing months of work you'll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Complications could see you paralyzed or in lifelong pain, and it's very possible both of you die on the table - maybe even likely.
The doctors are telling you it's a terrible idea to go through with this, that the risk is unacceptable and it would be a mercy to just let her pass, but they're obligated to go through with it if you insist.
Now, no one is stopping you from going through with it - if you want to put your life on the line for another, that's your decision to make. You're her guardian now, so it's your decision if she should have to go through the pain for the chance at life, no matter how small.
That's all well and good - I've seen enough to know that death is often a mercy, but if you believe otherwise there's not much to say
Now, here's my question - should the government be able to force you to attempt the transplant?
Some of these details might seem weird, but I was trying to stick the metaphor as close as possible to a very real scenario with a dangerous pregnancy. The only difference is - the doctor is performing an action here, but withholding one with the pregnancy.
You're not though - pregnancy is not a lack of action. It's an enormous commitment, especially when it's atypical. It can even be a practically guaranteed death sentence - if the fetus implants in the fallopian tubes, it's already not viable - at best you're waiting for the fetus to grow big enough to rupture them, and hoping the bleed that causes doesn't do too much damage before you can get help.
Not to mention if a fetus dies in the womb after it gets to a certain size, it rots and leads to sepsis - unclear laws and harsh punishments have already led to situations where doctors refused care for both of these life threatening cases, and in both these cases the odds aren't slim, they're none. In the second the fetus was already gone... Sometimes when they induce labor the fetus isn't even in one piece... It's pretty grisly
I don't agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let's set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
So... My root question to you is - Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
If so, how sure do you have to be that the other person will die no matter what you do before you're released from the compulsion to put your own health on the line?
There's always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
