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!]
Then you must also believe that any man and woman who choose not to have sex with each other should be required to prove that by making that choice they are not terminating the life of an individual human. And you must also believe that any woman who has a miscarriage must have to prove that she did not do anything to cause the death of an individual human. And you must also believe that anyone preparing to do anything at all must have to prove that they will not thereby set off a chain of events which may result in the death of another individual human. Otherwise you are being inconsistent.
Why is it that the abortionist is not required to prove the 'thing' he/she is about to assault is NOT ALIVE?.
If an abortionist (or anyone else) is charged with assault/murder, they would only be required to prove that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether that fetus was (a) a human being, (b) harmed/killed unlawfully, or (c) harmed/killed intentionally, in order to be acquitted. Even in the absence of Roe v. Wade, all reasonable jurors would have a reasonable doubt as to whether a recently formed fetus was a human being. That is why an early term abortion is only prosecutable as a practical matter if abortion is specifically criminalized.
You seem intent on forcing people to prove their innocence of wrongdoing rather than requiring prosecutors to prove their guilt. For obvious reasons, your approach is very popular with totalitarian governments.