If you do not think the Bible is the word of God , why say that the word of God is required for your opinion to include babys as persons ?
You are confounding two assumptions here (1) that there is a God capable of putting in an appearance, and (2) that the same Being produced the Bible. One can believe in a Deity without believing in the Hebrew version of that Deity. One can believe in Ahuru-Mazda or Brahma or the Great Spirit.
What sort of "God" are you looking for?
If I say that God should put in a personal appearance affirming at what point a fetus becomes a human (ie the insertion of a soul), then that is the sort of God to which I am referring.
As described in the Bible, God is rather enigmatic. Genesis claims that God spoke to Adam & Eve personally. It states that God made Man in His own image.
However, when God appears later in Exodus to Moses, he chooses to appear as flaming shrubbery. We know for sure that God did not create Man in the image of burning bushes, don't we?
In the other relatively few appearances. God appears to people noted for being rather mentally unstable, like Jeremiah or the wacky author of the Book of Revelation, allegedly John of Patmos.
God does appear in films as George Burns, Morgan Fairchild, and other actors, and there is that bit in The Ten Commandments, but those are not taken as authentic by anyone as anything but whimsy or pious speculation.
I do not expect that God will be putting in an appearance on behalf of fetuses. After all, He did not appear one hundred times life size and say in the booming James Earl Jones voice, simultaneously in German, Polish, Yiddish and whatever, "NOW CUT THAT OUT!", which would surely have been the most logical thing to do.
Jesus, who some claim to be God, said He would return before the last of the group with whom He was speaking had died. Unless there is a 2000 year old disciple still roaming about, we know that this is not what happened. Jesus still has not returned.
