Reply #12: Hmmmm.... [View All]

[DoNotRefill]

"But that's not much different from the situation for non-pregnant people. When someone comes at you with a knife, you can't predict whether you're likely to get a superficial cut to your bicep, or a deep stab through your heart. That's why the traditional standard, for the self-defence justification to be available against a charge of homicide, doesn't require certainty of death if one doesn't defend one's self, or even reasonable apprehension of death; it just requires reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death."

I look on it this way: If a person comes at another person, and it reasonably seems that the attacker is going to chop off the victim's arm, that justifies the use of lethal force to stop them, right? After all, there's an imminent risk of grave bodily harm (losing a limb), right?

I buy the z/e/f or whatever you want to call it being defined as tissue as opposed to being defined as a separate life. But if you're able to use lethal force to keep from losing your arm, you should be able to use lethal force to keep from losing the z/e/f, right? I mean hell, tissue is tissue. My point is that since z/e/fs are more susceptable to damage/less able to take abuse without being injured than, say, an arm, that part of a woman should have a recognized lesser standard for the use of self-defense. What'cha think?