Is that what women are now, "some thing key to survival"?
There is a vast difference between a couple of insulin pens, and a human being.
Which still misses the point that the women should be the ones making the choice as to if they want to be key to survival or not and it shouldn't be up to anyone else as to if they want to our don't want to be.
Anyway it's not uncommon for humans to be key to survival of others (doctors, nurses, parents, first aiders, etc.) however they all have the right to refuse to do so (for instance a doctor could refuse to treat their child, not because they want their child to die, but maybe because they can't do it due to their emotions).
As an aside it's only been fairly recently that it's been possible to have a child survive to weaning without the need of a women.
The thing that I was highlighting is that wherever there's one step towards taking away that choice it runs the risk of the next step of taking away choice becoming easier and causing greater harm.
That is "rare" but is also a lot (and maybe more than some people think?) The real figure is probably quite a bit higher too.
Depends on how you define rare and why you need to define it.
Taking another example if 1:12 (circa 8%) people died of Covid how much more would we have gone through to limit the spread? Probably a lot more than we did.
Why? because we can see first hand the harm that it is doing, because people are less likely to talk about it then it doesn't get the same level of attention.
To put those numbers (8%) into context in 2 classrooms there'd be 5 children who were born due to rape, within a primary schools with 2 form entry that's 35 children. A 2 form entry primary school is viable in a village of about 4,500 people. That's only counting those in primary education.
Personally I don't think that's not really rare enough to justify not giving women the choice.