Self-defense

The law dictates that when two rights are competing, the one who creates the first violation forfeits his/her rights to a certain extent. This is why a woman being hit by her husband can hit her husband back and while her actions are legal, his are not. Her right to self-defense outweighs his right not to be hit as long as he created the first violation. You see, a person gives up their right to not be harmed the second they harm another person, intentionally or non-intentionally. In other words, a person's right to their body doesn't mean that they can't legally be harmed if that harm is a result of self-defense. Whether or not the user is aware of his/her actions or can aide in their own defense is irrelevant to whether or not a person has a right to stop the use of their body by that person. This is a fundamental tenet to self-defense laws. All that mattes is that the use of the body is NOT consented to and that explicit non-consent is present. When in a position that you must use self-defense, the least amount of force necessary to stop the unwanted use of your body must be used. Each situation is probably a little different. In the case of pregnancy, that would be the simply removal of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive the separation has no bearing on the woman's right to that separation because there is no other method that will have a different result.