The ' grievous bodily harm ' rule defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with intent to do grievous bodily harm, whereas, the abolition of the ' grievous bodily harm ' rule would mean that murder would no longer be defined as such.
Context: "Should ' grievous bodily harm ' rule be abolished in murder ?" Claim: "Does the ‘ grievous bodily harm ’ rule extend the definition of murder too far ?"
Considering the context, is the claim true, false, or unknown?