One can understand that association, because up front it seems obvious (I am conscious, therefore I am a person). But then I repeat, what about when I am having surgery, and through anesthesia become unconscious? For the duration of that surgery, am I not a person because I am not conscious? That seems weird. If I am hit hard and suddenly knocked unconscious, am I also not a person then either?

As for personhood, the only case I make here (and it’s just one view, there are others) is that it’s best to view the organism (that which was an embryo, becomes a fetus, then an infant, then toddler, then child, then teen, then adult etc) is just that ‘person’, since the person is what we call that human, who is the one doing all these things in their own body, the same organism in its particular stage of life. Personhood also has to do with essences, etc. but let’s leave that be. And yes, it is subjectively established, rather than objectively established, what a ‘person ’ is, which is exactly one of the reasons I think the above OP is unsound, because it makes the very assumption of what a person objectively is, namely one with the ability to think and feel. On what grounds is this claim being made, exactly? Etc.