The problem is that you want to affect what other people do. That puts the burden of proof upon you. We know that the pregnant woman is a person. How are you going to prove that a fetus is, that a embryo is, that a blastosphere is. Or worse yet that a fertilized egg is a person. The reason that anti abortion people are at times against IVF is that more eggs than are needed are fertilized and some are going to be thrown away.
I am not against IVF. You don't have to prove it is a person. You have to prove it has a reasonable chance to become a person. You have the same problem. You cannot define when it is a person either. If you are advocating for killing the life no matter how you define it, shouldn't you have to prove it is not a person? So when does a fetus become a person?
Here is what appears to be the logic of your position:
1. There is an undefined entity called a "person".
2. If a woman becomes impregnated with this undefined entity, and the entity is a potentially viable one, then she cannot terminate the pregnancy under any circumstances.
3. If she can prove that the undefined entity is not a potentially viable "person", then she can terminate the pregnancy.
No exclusions for rape, incest, or threat to the woman's health, life, or ability to care for the undefined entity. And this should be a law enforced by the government despite the woman's own wishes, fears, or desires--at least until she can come up with a definition of "person" that you and/or the government finds acceptable and then prove that it is a nonviable person.
Does that accurately explain what your position is? If not, I hope you can explain where I misunderstood what you appear to advocate.