I could start telling you what to do, I suppose, if you'd like.

you did it again. you're already doing that. you're saying "sorry little fetus, im going to make it legal to kill you today. all you're doing is assuming the conclusion.

personhood...people and objects don't have moral status

you just don't understand what moral status means. The term personhood is being used to separate the question of humanity (because face it a fetus is human even if you're pro choice...the problem is "being human" by itself isn't interesting, it's a biological not a moral fact). Objects don't have moral status, unless you want to claim they do ("i suppose if youd like") but what about animals? Is it ethical for humans to kill say tigers or eat meat or own pets? Peter Singer obviously thinks lots of these sorts of things are not morally permissible. do you know why? because he thinks animals have a high moral status and thus killing them for our ends is wrong. Do you reject the idea of human rights? if not your going to be accepting that all humans share a basic moral status that guarentees rights x y and z. this isn't a pro life trick or something it's just basic definitions.

know why it matters whether or not something is a person to begin with

yes. personhood as a moral claim is pretty clearly understood as a concept. it's not my fault you don't know but to be fair you can always question the concept (it just helps to not be in a position of ignorance). I think your ignorance leads you to fundamentally misunderstand my claim. My whole damn point is the "real" question is "is a fetus a person with the moral claims of one?" that's the real question and your attack on the definition of personhood doesn't do anything but create a definition game.

here is what i mean

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/02/06/abortion-again/

Finally, and probably most importantly (at least for more reflective individuals), there is a fundamental ambiguity to the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. “Pro-life”: Of course an embryo is, biologically speaking, human life. So was my appendix, when it was removed when I was about twelve; it was not canine life. The question is not whether the embryo is human life, but whether he or she is a human person. There

this isn't a shell game it's pointing out that the question isn't human not human it's "human with the status of a moral person" versus not. person has all those pesky little things like human rights we so dearly love (including right not to be murdered). your argument only works if you assume we just must agree that a fetus is a moral person when all i'm saying is this is the real debate.