First of all, I am pro-life in my approach. I still would say that what is really needed for any change being possible for more protection to life, before and after birth, is a number of systems in place, for more care of children universally and for adoption made much more possible, for those who want to adopt and those children waiting for someone to want them and be adopted by such. Critics do say, and maybe rightly in some cases, that pro-life people do not think about needs of more children who are already born. We need to show otherwise with actually working to have such helpful systems for children in place, much further, for hope for any real change from abortions and have such change last.
I think that "person" is a vague term not adequately defined. It is unfortunately used in legal ways to distinguish those who will be treated as having a right to their lives, and who is excepted to that. Thus, gypsies, Jews, and others have been denied being considered persons, where they were exterminated. I have the experience in this current pandemic hearing from an acquaintance who I could have thought of as a friend telling me I, as one more vulnerable, should just die off so that others who are fit will go on living their lives better without those who are not as fit. This idea of distinguishing any, so that there will not be concern with killing those others off, wherever the line is drawn, flies against true morality that killing is just wrong. It is not to be whether they can talk or whether they can reason. It is really whether they can feel pain, and have a capacity to suffer. Killing in this case is just morally wrong.
The situation with Jesus was an example of the innocent betrayed, much in the same way that many humans and many animals are sentenced to suffer and die every year for the benefit of power hungry and greedy people in power.
This being said from long ago still is valid and applies, the yet unborn babies, which they call fetuses, qualify as much for what this applies to.
"Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. ... The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated ... upon the same footing as ... animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes... "
Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
And the unborn babies that are at issue for recognition of rights are really human. Denial of that is only from ignorance of the relevant science.
