[MeanWestTexan]

Well, they have the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove a fetus is not a person.

Let’s hear their arguments.

[aNYCguy]

Well, they have the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove a fetus is not a person.

No, they don't, at least not in the way you're thinking, and this is where you've missed the point.

When someone is protected by the constitution (that is, they are a "person" according to the constitution), then they cannot be deprived of life or liberty without due process. This is not the same thing as the question of whether an entity is in fact protected under the constitution.

I don't believe you're intentionally trying to use this red herring, but have just gotten confused.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Their “argument” would be to pass a bill stating “for all matters of law in the State of ‘X’, ‘person’ shall be defined as ‘one that can live outside the mother’”....or something to that affect of legally defining “person” as a viable child outside the mother.

End of argument.