He apparently considers making a statement more important than saving himself.
Odd that one so bent on protecting life decided that murder was the best statement to that end.
When I was 13, I had not attended law school.
I was shocked
-- incredulous on learning that abortion was illegal; a crime.
I deemed abortion to be an aspect of self defense from an intrusive parasite.
It was the same as killing invasive bacteria.
The fact that the invasive organism woud eventually become human did not change
the morality of the situation, because defense from humans is very common.
Accordingly, I subsequently welcomed Roe v. Wade
, years later.
I find the anti-abortion position to be immoral
because it champions the bad guy -- the instrusive parasite -- at the expense
of his hostess. That is morally outrageous. She has a right to defend herself.
Having said that, in a way,
I understand and dissent from defendant 's reasoning.
He erroneously believes that he is defending INNOCENT
as if the parasite had any right to be in there and
as if the pregnant chick had no right to defend herself.
To make his position more understandable,
let 's look at it this way:
Suppose that defendant saw someone throwing grenades into a lot of kids
(shall we say 5 years old, for the sake of argument?)
who were doing no harm and who were not parasites
with each of them having a right to live.
If defendant drew his gun and took out the grenadier
he 'd not be defending himself, but he woud be defending
other innocent citizens from a killer. Hence, he 'd act as a hero
and sees himself as such.
Different mental premises of argument yield different results.