Your right to not be inconvenienced doesn't outweigh another human being's right to live and you are going to have a rude awakening when the supreme court says exactly that
If your lawyer allowed the prosecution to present philosophical concetps as evidence, you got the wrong lawyer. Why can't you simply admit that you would not want to be tried for your life based on anything but the facts.
Of course we know that if you admitted that, then you would expose yourself as a hypocrite since you are perfectly willing to deny unborns their right to live based on philosophical sleight of hand.
Light'n up, Bud. You asked, I answered in like mode.