system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Abortion is not murder. Life begins during the pregnancy, but human personhood isn't achieved until long after birth.

One of the most hotly debated topics in society \(second, maybe, to the POTUS\) is defining when human life begins, where the general goal is to enable the freedom of choice as it pertains to abortion, or outlaw abortion either outright or during some stage of the pregnancy. The following discussion will put forth an uncommon definition of human life, but one that is more logically sound than those most often proposed.

Many argue that human life begins at conception, while opponents of this view claim that it is either at childbirth, after the first breath, or some time during the pregnancy. A more sensible alternative is one that serves as a dual interpretation of human life, where a potentially independent living entity is fully developed during the late stages of the pregnancy, but the process of becoming a reasoning, logical thinking human being requires many months to a few years of development after birth. So how does this explain the view above?

Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" \(Merriam\-Webster\). It is clear from this definition, that you have committed murder if you malevolently take the life of a human, regardless of your reasoning and regardless of the circumstances \(i.e. during war or under extreme duress, murder is not so well defined legally\). The caveat is in the definition of "person", or equivalently "human", both of which carry numerous vague definitions which are often self\-looping and redundant \(e.g. from Merriam\-Webster, Human: " of, relating to, or characteristic of humans"\). The definition of personhood is therefore still a philosophical one. What exactly does it mean to be a person?

When not discussed in the context of abortion, many of you would agree with the definition of personhood as being a rational thinking, logical reasoning biped of the species homo sapiens, but when a party disagrees with abortion, the party often will reduce personhood to something far simpler, such as a fetus with a heartbeat. Proponents of freedom of choice than attempt to find some middle ground, such as taking a breath of air... Unfortunately, neither of these truly qualify.

Life is created over time, during numerous phases of a pregnancy, where a living entity is formed that can eventually survive outside the womb. However, to become a person, one needs to be able to think rationally, logically, reasonably, ethically, morally, etc. beyond that of living member of any other animal species. These characteristics separate humanity from other species. These characteristics, among many others not needed here as further evidence, cannot be realized by a newborn with a completely underdeveloped brain. While this opens the door for an argument that this view leads to acceptance of infanticide, it is abruptly clear that pre\-birth, a person is not yet created. Thus, abortion during pregnancy, or the termination of a living entity that is not yet a person, is not murder.

I challenge you to change my view!!
gpt
This isn't a new or novel idea, and has been destroyed many times by people smarter than anyone here. The bottom line here is that your method of assigning personhood has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. 

Your definition of personhood is utterly subjective and based on zero quantifiable... Well, anything. How many of the criteria do you need to be a person? On what sort of sliding scale are you judged? At what age is the general population going to be subjected to the Personhood Tests? 

You say it's "abruptly clear" that a person is not created pre-birth, but your argument is circular and subjective. Your posts on infanticide dodge the point, since you can't defend the fact that a newborn of 5 minutes is identical in every respect to a newborn born four days premature. The only thing that changes is the location of the "entity" as you put it..

You say an unborn entity cannot exist without the mother. Biologically untrue though that it is, it also applies to infants. Infants would most certainly die without the support of the mother/family unit. Where's the line?

Like all arguments for abortion based on personhood, this model is shallow and inconsistent and too subjective. 

The best arguments in favor of abortion don't bother with the silliness of what defines a person and focus instead on bodily autonomy and the right of the individual (sick violinist example). Arguments that place an utterly arbitrary definition of personhood on humans are, like the one in the OP, too full of subjective bias to be particularly convincing.