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

i don't know how con can so flagrantly act as if i haven't met my BOP. morals are something that are not like quantitivative analysis. it is more nebulous. it it inherent. value. at best BOP in this argument ,ist just a matter of who is more convincing. i can understand if con thinks im less persuative, but my impression is that he is acting as if there's something more quantitative that i'm missing. for a moral argument, though, i'm hitting all the high points. "claim coming from the Pro is that there is no way to easily identify person-hood. How it thus follows that abortion should be illegal in the first trimester is beyond me, but let us continue. " i said that we should defer to human life. that's how it follows that i think it should illegal, even if not easily identifiable. again, con seems to be missing the points im arguing. he can disagree, but he seems to be acting as if there's more i'm not addressing, that i in fact am addressing. con argues that viability is the magic point for pesonhood. i admit it removes an element of arbitariness given it has a firm standard for what constitutes a person. but there are no moral reasons why we couldn't push personhood further back earlier into the pregnancy. i admit first trimester is arbitrary, but my main point s that it should be earlier in pregnancy, more a frame of refenence. let's examine con's magic line a little more. viability starts when con says. what about a week before viability? it's hard to argue it's not a person, just that it's not a person who can sustain their own life. perhaps this is sufficient for a secular mindset to not grant rights to that person, but there's no necessary moral reasons we coud'nt go further back. or, take the lego and snowball analogy. anyone would recognize that a snowball and lego are not their corresponding men, but anyone would also recognize that some snowballs and legos short of a man is still a man, just not a complete man. it's a fuzzy line in between. but, in the abortion issue, as i elaborated earlier, there are distuiguisments like it being an organism and being able to grow itself, unlike other cells. a snowball that grew itself into a snowman would indeed be a unque situation, and we couldnt apply our snowball snowman anaolgy so forthrightly. again, as stated, this then is an issue of deference to human life. con argues the fetus has no rights to the mother's body. he didn't address my 'assumption of the risk' point, at least directly. the mother assumed the risk of getting pregnant. as the pregnancy continues, she assumes the issue more and more by not abortin when it's at least morally grayer. and for an analogy counter to con's, what if someone were to cause an accident, and the victim were attached to the wrong doers body? no sane person would argue that the wrong doer should be able to kill the victim. to con's anaology... it's too imperfect. a burglar is an intruder. not a possibile risk that the woman accepts by being sloppy with her door open. with sex, the woman must understand that she is causing a sitaution where someone, at least a putative someone, will become dependant upon her for actions that she took. she did more than passive sloppy behavior. she took proactive steps to facilitate the consequnces. i suppose we could take these standards being argued by myself and con as blurry. 'proactive steps to facilitate the consequence' and 'being sloppy'. but if this were a trial by jury, the jury would have to interpret what a prenancy should constiute.... something akin to what i'm arguing, or soemthing akin to what con is arguing. i dont see how con thinks the best interpretation is his guidelines, cause it is just contrary to good sensibilities of interptation and application. there's a matter of degree, how far the woman took the actions that led to the result, etc. plus, if i were to want to get technical and play dirty, it's not like burglars are without rights. there's been times when a burglar was climbing onsomeone's roof, fell through the glass ceiling, landed on a knife, sued the homeowner, and won. not saying it was right, just aruing in a more dirty way that it's not always so black and white like con would like us to think. unlike con suggests i will do, i'm not going to argue that we should overlook the law's principle, merely because the effects make it of no consequence. i wholeheartedly agree that the principle of hte matter should prevail in this matter. it's just a matter where he and i must disagree. and i would like to jab, with him doing a less than stellar job at it. (he argues very capably, i just dont think the ultimate conclusion he makes is the most sensible and just consideration of all the factors involved)