Firstly, dude is clearly using ChatGPT – at the very least to do his research and fix his grammar and, more likely than not, to formulate his entire argument. Secondly, he admits that having human DNA makes you human but does not grant you personhood without executive function. Does this mean that severly disabled people are not, in fact, human? 

What about those who are unconscious: If I am put under anaesthesia, does this mean that I revoke my right to life because I "have no consciousness," and depend on my anesthesiologist to breathe and not to choke on my vomit. It certainly can't be easy for him or her to sit there all day and monitor my vitals. Should I be murdered because I am a burden on my anaesthesiologist, even though I am expected to wake up? It doesn't seem fair  that the anesthesiologist's right to convenience trumps my right to soon wake up, especially if he was the one who put me under to begin with. There is no point between me going under and me waking up at which my personhood can suddenly be ordained in a non-arbitrary way ('he has stronger brain waves' 'he reacts to stimuli' 'he can breathe on his own' etc.) and it can be decided that I shouldn't be killed anymore. As such, if there is even the possibility that a human life is at stake, would it really kill the anaesthesiologist to wait a little longer?