abortion should be illegal including the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

*aside from rape and mother's health, and perhaps fetal defect, abortion should be illegal including the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished in the first trimester. given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle. abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it could probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. indeed, if we saw a snowball or lego growing into the corresponding person, we wouldn't and shouldnt treat it the same as a regular snowball, lego. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it. human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences. and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where. also, while this doesn't apply at first, as the pregnancy continues, the mother assumes the fact that the pregnancy continues to exist, and she is not aborting when it is morally grayer. also, if you were to look at it in terms of analogies, there are seveeral at the end of this post that it could be compared to. another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother? plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal. ---------------- the responsibilties in getting pregnant are like causing an accident, and rupturing someone's kidneys and causing them to lose blood. couldn't it be said that the wrong doer should be forced to give that person blood, and maybe even a kidney, at least as long as the wrong doer would not die? many insist on absolute bodily autonomy, even in an accident situation, and so would reject that. but i would argue the moral obligation is there. another analogy. someone causes an accident in while planes are in mid air. the planes crash on the island of the person who caused the crash. the person who caused the crash should not be able to evict the victim, by tossing them to sea, or killing them. you could replace planes and islands, with cars and the wrong doers home. it is also like. and this is bizarre but it is not much more bizarre that that 'well respected' (really a joke of a publication) violinist debate. you cause a car accident. the victim is caused to be attached to you kidneys. they are sustained by your kidneys and need them for awihle to live. hardly no one would say the person who caused the accident should be able to kill the victim. and what makes birth the magic point that changes the parents responsibitlies? a person could argue... the child was a burglar in my house. i let the burglar stay until he was ready to leave. then i let him leave. why am i obligated to take care of them... they were burglars to begin with and i was going a nice thing for them letting them stay. society might have laws that frown on this thinking, but if you take the burglar analogy to its consequence, it was still a burglar at birth too. you just happened to let him live awhile instead of legally killing him. why should mother's liberty continue to be hindered due to someone who came as a burglar to begin with? this shouldn't be allowed, i'm just taking the 'burglar' analogy to its consequence.