In general you may use deadly force in self defense if you have a reasonable belief of imminent harm from not doing so. However, we are seeing women being turned away because the threat isn't beyond a shadow of a doubt, or because the threat isn't imminent enough even if the threat is certain.
So the analogy would be...I can do something which will absolutely and unquestionably end the life of another human despite that human being neither an imminent nor certain cause of my death - absolutely and unquestionably.
Normally if it's not imminent you are required to go to the cops. But in this case there's no cop that can stop the threat. Thus it's purely a matter of the level of the threat, not how imminent it is.
That's not how self defense laws work.Isn't this a violation of proportionality when it comes to lethal self defence?
Shouldnt we err on the side of...your pregnancy isnt unquestionably going to killl you but an abortion will unquestionably kill the unborn.
Let's consider a case that has come up in the news: despite multiple ultrasounds they are unable to visualize the pregnancy. The most likely scenario is that it's ectopic--and remember you can use deadly force against anyone you reasonably believe is trying to kill you. While there is no intent an ectopic is certainly a deadly threat. The threshold for self defense is met yet an abortion has been denied.
It's not a trolley dilemma--the question is whether it runs over just the fetus or the fetus and the woman. No life is saved.<God throws Lion out of a plane with a baby hanging on. The baby isn't going to be able to hold on through the opening shock so you must not pull the chute until you're 800' above the ground. To pull at 1,000' is murder.>
There's easier ways than this to present the abortion trolley dilemma.
But that's not how the abortion bans are being implemented. They're requiring the women to be in a critical state before they do an abortion, or in some cases they do a c-section instead of an "abortion" even though a live birth is an impossibility.If we are certain we can only save one life, there's nothing immoral saving one life because we didn't choose to end the other.
And "choose" is an attempt to pretend the situation isn't what it is.
Water breaks too early. Infection is inevitable, there's no chance of a successful pregnancy. Doom is as certain as the ground rushing towards you. But if she's not low enough (sick enough) she can't pull the ripcord (have an abortion.)
Likewise, the success rate of a molar "pregnancy" (it hardly deserves the term) is 0%. They're basically a cancer and will kill if not aborted before they spread.