[JustSayNoToNannies]

The legal doctrine is called "vicarious self-defense" or "defense of another." [...] My intervention is also justified by the legal defense of "necessity."

But since the law doesn't recognize the unborn baby as a person, it seemingly follows that legally there is no "another" to defend and so those defenses don't apply. (Please understand that I'm addressing only the legal issue - morally and ethically, the unborn baby IS a human person, abortion IS wrong and OUGHT to be stopped, and it is morally and ethically praiseworthy to practice civil disobedience in defense of unborn persons.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

It seems to me that a judge could deal with the status of the prenatal individual rather swiftly, just with a finding of fact: "this is human person, therefore..."

I understand that the principle of necessity defense can be applied even when the otherwise-illegal action was intended to defend a substantial value other than a human life, e.g. to protect a million dollar lottery ticket, a Stradivarius violin, a valuable art collection, an important document, or a prized dog. Am I (legally) correct on that point?