Burden of Proof on the Pro-Abortionist

From this lecture found on CovenantWorldWide.org:

If human life is held at one point to be inviolate, but not from conception when a new biological organism comes into being, then the burden of proof is on those who would inflict death to show that the point at which you may inflict death is not arbitrary but is grounded in something in reality.

Later on Dr. Jones goes on to say:

I think that the idea that these are not actual persons is mistaken. I would say that we ought to say something like this: the fetus is an actual human being who in due course will exhibit the personal characteristics of human nature. Now, those characteristics as a functioning human being are as yet unrealized, because the fetus is still developing. So he is not functioning as a self-conscious, rational, free, moral agent, but that is what he is. I would put it this way and say that these characteristics are as yet unrealized, because the fetus is still in that developing stage. But here is my point. It is crucial to note the child does not become a person when these things are realized; rather, these things are realized because he or she is a person. A human being is a person. And given the development, he will exhibit personal characteristics. He does not become a person when he starts thinking; rather, he starts thinking because he is a personal human being. And I think there is a vast difference between a potential person and a person who has not yet reached his or her potential. I think it is worth recalling the old nonfunctional definition of a person as "an individual subsistence in human nature." It will not fit on a bumper sticker. It is an individual subsistence in human nature, not a choice. But it is the truth and the way we ought to look at it. It is an individual subsistence in human nature; that is what a person is. A human being by definition is a person.

The child does not become a person when these characteristics are realized; that is, when he starts functioning as a thinking being relating meaningfully to others. That takes a while, at least a month. Well, it is early. Rather, they are realized because he or she is a person. In other words, you would not start thinking if you were not already a person. You do not become a person when you start thinking; you are a developing person that starts thinking. If you take the definition of a person as rational, reflecting, and relating meaningfully to others, an infant is not any more of a person than a fetus in the womb, if that is your definition. And so, it is a matter of being consistent. We cannot say it is a potential person in the womb; then we lose the argument against Peter Singer, because he is making the same argument. It is basically the same. If you define a person in terms of these functioning characteristics, then you remove the protection of Down syndrome babies as well.