[ QUOTE ]
Why is the opposite not correct? Until you can prove a fetus is NOT a person you shouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thought on this... (even though I'm not talking about proofs, I'm talking about rational agreements and understanding):

How exactly would you prove (or show) that a fetus is not a person? That's basically what I'm asking us to do: decide what criteria denotes personhood. Then, if a fetus has that, it would be a person; if it doesn't, then it wouldn't be a person.

Has anyone proved that a chicken is not a person? Or a rock? If not, should we eat chickens or break rocks unless we can prove they are not people? Obviously, we have some ideas of what constitutes personhood, and use that for justifying our position in killing chickens.

But one more step... people are buried every day. We say they are not longer "alive" (or, no longer "persons" meaning they do not have the "right to life"). How do we know? If we aren't sure, then shouldn't we try to maintain their bodies, just in case they are alive? Surely buring them in the ground before we know they are no longer people would be murder?

My point is, we DO have a working theory on what consitutes personhood. I'm trying to get us to think about it rationally, to see if it makes sense, and then use that in determining if and when abortion should be legal.