what is left for me to kill you and you kill me ---there is nothing between?

Sometimes, a pregnant woman will undergo a medically necessary abortion.
The woman must choose between the life of the fetus and her own life.

In these situations, the fetus is aborted and with proper medical care the woman in question recovers from her preganancy and her surgery. She has aborted her fetus and she has survived to continue living.

In some cases, abortion of the fetus under sub-sterile conditions, results in a woman becoming septic, and with some degree of probablity, the life of the woman is aborted.

Under these conditions, the above comment "...for me to kill you and you kill me" could apply.

This is one possible medical/scientific explanation for the statement "kill you...kill me"...

According to Mother T. elective abortion (?) is a primary cause of the desruction of peace. Since Mother T, has never been pregnant, nor has she ever had an abortion, I doubt that she can be considered an expert in the matter, even though she is certaily widely know for her work in various peace movements.

Sometimes, a pregnant woman will undergo a medically necessary abortion.
The woman must then choose between the life of the fetus and her own life.

In these situations, the fetus is aborted and with proper medical care the woman in question recovers from her preganancy and her surgery. She has aborted her fetus and she has survived to continue living.

In other cases, abortion of the fetus under sub-sterile conditions, results in a woman becoming septic, and with some degree of probablity, the life of the woman is aborted.

Under these conditions, the above comment "...for me to kill you and you kill me" could apply.

This is one possible medical/scientific explanation for the statement "kill you...kill me"...

According to Mother T. elective abortion (?) is a primary cause of the desruction of peace. Since Mother T, has never been pregnant, nor has she ever had an abortion, I doubt that she can be considered an expert in the matter, even though she is certaily widely know for her work in various peace movements.

(The above is an edited version of my first post. The EDIT function didn't work).

This is poorly written (stated). The "because" is the key here, I think. If it's OK to kill your own child, then what could possibly be wrong with killing some unrelated person? Nothing, she's saying. There could be no moral restraint "in between" to divert or stop two people from killing each other in that case. The "in between" kinda means a "barrier," a wall, or deterrent, I think. And, in her view, it is this lack of any moral compunction that "destroys peace."

I think that was her intent, I mean. But her intent is not really clear from the way it's written.