[TigersEye]

If a man was doing what you have suggested I would most certainly consider it an attack on my family. Legal or not he would die. Legally recognized or not it would be self defense. (I would hope to be smart enough and lucky enough to avoid legal entanglements but those possibilities would not factor into the decision.)

I am somewhat amazed that you would consider a man who rapes your wife and then tries to gain access to your family and your families assets on the specious legal grounds that he's the father of the baby to be "an inconvenience."

There is no need to consider the "what-ifs" of every conceivable consequence of your actions if you simply recognize 'what is' and act appropriately. The reliability of cause and effect makes doing the right thing the best thing in all situations no matter how it 'seems' to turn out. The shaky thinking in your example is probably the result of taking "thinkers" like Socrates seriously.

[Graymatter]

I used the word "inconvenience" to reflect someone else's use, on this thread, of that word. They were likening a pregnancy resulting from rape to an inconvenience.

Naturally, I would consider a man who rapes your wife and then tries to gain access to your family and your family's assets on the specious legal grounds that he's the father of the baby to be worse than an inconvenience. Nevertheless the law would not permit me to kill him. Nor do I think I could justify killing him outside the law.

Thus I am somewhat amazed that you readily answer,
"If a man was doing what you have suggested I would most certainly consider it an attack on my family. Legal or not he would die. Legally recognized or not it would be self defense. (I would hope to be smart enough and lucky enough to avoid legal entanglements but those possibilities would not factor into the decision.)"

There is so much in there, but I don't wish to detain you in hypothetical situations, since you dislike them. :)