No, I wasn't. Stop attacking straw men. It's a waste of your time.
In point of fact, it ought to be required of the one preparing to do an abortion to prove there is not an individual human about to be terminated (and in too many cases, dissected for tissue to be shipped to research labs). As of this date, such a proof does not exist, so I propose we realign the debate along lines of life support for individual human life since science supports the truth of that assertion of the life in the human womb being human life.
If you were to stick a long knife into a cadaver, or shoot a cadaver, would you be prosecuted for murder? No. How would your defense attorney approach your case? By showing that the cadaver was not alive of course.
Why is it that the abortionist is not required to prove the 'thing' he/she is about to assault is NOT ALIVE?... I ask, specifically, because many of the little ones being assault are then dissected for tissue transfers to research labs, and if a whole little one were to be sent along to the lab and be found alive upon arrival, could the lab go ahead and harvest tissue anyway? [I'm sure the paradoxes are by now glaring, but here's one further point: the abortion clinics harvesting tissues and whole bodies of the aborted little ones NEVER HAVE TO PROVE THE LITTLE ONE WAS DEAD BEFORE HARVESTING. Think about it. The fetal tissue industry is now a billion dollar plus enterprise!]