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.
You're a twist individual, ravinson, thus you use the typical socialist mindset to try and twist that which you doi not even marginally comprehend. [Get help. Get help professionsal help; your current meds are obviously not working.]