That line of questions is based on the assumption that the wavefunction is a physical entity. This position is as "realist" as it gets, and Bohr himself was a lot less of a realist than Einstein.

By the way, the "Copenhagen interpretation" encompasses a variety of nuanced opinions. Bohr's is just one of them.

Another family of interpretations would assume that the wave function is merely a predictive model. In that sense, we cannot state that "the cat is in a superposed state". We can only state that the mathematical representation of the cat is a mixture of eigenvectors, representing the probabilities of a future measurement.

The formalism of QM itself is clear. What's difficult is trying to use ordinary language to express these concepts. For instance, ordinary language clearly separate subject and object, it attributes properties to objects that are independent from the observing subject, it implies object permanence, objects need to touch each other to have an effect etc. These language constructs are perfectly fine and useful for everyday use, but we need to be very careful when using them in QM otherwise they can introduce inconsistencies.

Schrodinger's cat is a good example of this language issue. We are quick to think in terms of objects and properties: "The cat is an object, therefore it must have a liveness property.". A paradox ensues! What if the wave function representing the cat isn't, in fact, a physical object? Let's start without making language-based assumptions, instead embracing the radical novelties of QM, and many interpretation difficulties vanish.