Yes, but as long as the fetus is physically connected to the mother, it is not a person.
Yep, that's pretty much the talking point used by people who desire cover for the act of murder.
Bowana, think about it. The baby is a person, we can all see that. Whether it gets nourishment through the umbilical cord or Moms teat can not be the definition of personhood. Nor can geography.
A 20 month old baby is not a person one second and it is a second later when delivered prematurely? Of course not.
Babys are just little people in life's continuum on the way to be big people paying big taxes and dreaming big dreams.
Why not?
What you are really saying is that you are happy with any arbitrary definition of "person" that permits you to deny personhood to the unborn, and thus legitimize their killing. There is no ontological difference between a baby 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after birth, except for the way that baby receives nourishment and oxygen. None.. That you are willing to hang personhood on that means that you can hang personhood on anything at all.
If it were technically possible, as it undoubtedly will be someday, to gestate a late-term fetus artificially, would such a fetus thereby be a "person"? After all, he or she would not be physically connected to any other human being, but only to a machine.
If you say, "No," then you have just proven my point. Your definition of "personhood" is simply a construct you can adjust willy-nilly to justify the killing that you want to justify.
If you say, "Yes," then you are in the ludicrous position of claiming that a fetus living inside a womb is a non-person, but an identically-developed fetus living inside a jar connected to a machine is a person.
Conjoined twins are phyiscally connected. They're people, right?