The Holocaust as well.

The only reason your argument has any merit is because you and all pro-choice folks choose to define "person" as you see fit. Let's look at my hypothetical situation that you never addressed before in a previous comment.

Let me give an analogy that I've thought long on. The argument that an unborn child is not yet a person, as advocated by Mary Anne Warren, is severely flawed in my mind. She suggests the following criteria define a person:

consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain

reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)

self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)

the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics

the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both

Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought. Think of a man. This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed. In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired. But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts. This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person. He is genetically human, but not a person. The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment. However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow. You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions. Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.

I suspect you would find horror at this situation. But fortunately, with only a little more fiddling with the definition of person, you could argue that the man in question also has a history, and thus retains his personhood, whereas a fetus (an unborn, and in early stages unformed, baby) has no history. But now it really seems like we are creating definitions to suit our own ends rather than simply relying on reality. Let's look at an analogy of such behavior.

Many conservative Christians define the word "cult" to meet their own ends and thus exclude other religions, such as Mormons. They come up with specific criteria so they make sure they can fit in while other groups do not. Such does not meet technical definitions of a cult, but since it carries such perjorative weight, they utilize the word according to their own definitions. I'm in the "in" club, but you're not. I have the right to be treated with a full amount of respect, and you do not.

It's an identical method of exclusion for convenience.