I'll spell it out for you. We have, at hand, two possible definitions of personhood.
1. A self-aware human being.
2. A born human being.
#1 avoids infanticide and allows abortion in the third trimester.
#2 either allows abortion in the third trimester and allows infanticide, or
doesn't allow abortion in the third trimester and doesn't allow infanticide, depending on the biology of self-awareness and when it begins.
#1 is anathema to the pro-life movement.
#2 is disagreeable to the pro-life movement, but could be adopted as a useful legal wedge in order to eventually outlaw abortion.
You have picked #1. I have picked #2. My reasons for picking #2 should be fairly obvious. Your reasons for picking #1 are not. I fail to see the benefits of it. It's dangerous, and either restricts/criminalizes women who desire ends to their late pregnancies for whatever reason, or doesn't but allows some latitude for early infanticide. Further, it plays into the hands of anti-abortion activists, giving them legitimate leeway to impose intrusive laws affecting a woman's body in order to verify stuff about her pregnancy, etc. Hell, that crap already happens, but often gets struck down. Why do you want it to be even easier
to impose that shit?
You're operating under a harmful paradigm. Whether you actively picked it or not, you are responsible
for the ramifications of your own paradigm. Hence, comments about your character and priorities are in-line. That's the necessary starting point. You've made a decision, and that decision is under discussion.