Trust me, consciousness in terms of the law,

The law doesn't matter.

and consciousness in terms of 'personhood' are intrinsically linked.

Personhood may have some link to consciousness.

But lack of consciousness does not mean personhood does not exist.

Saying so is pure mental speculation, the product of, like said, imposing philosophical concepts onto scientific data.

From the dictionary:

Personhood - the quality or condition of being an individual person.

Which leads us to person:

person - a self-conscious or rational being.

Interesting, how that gets us to consciousness.

I question the veracity of using "Dictionary.com" as your source for scientific terms.

You do understand that "personhood" has no universally agreed upon definition, correct?

Now, let's examine the problem with a "delayed personhood" claim that you support.

It could very well be true. What we will examine is how basing such a philosophical claim with our current understanding of science is faulty and wrong.

Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called "delayed personhood", that is, "personhood" that does not start until some point after fertilization, involves the theoretical disaster of accepting that the idea or concept of a mind/body split has any correlation or reflects the real world. It doesn't. Not to our current knowledge.

It might but based purely on science there is no evidence thus far.

Historically this problem was simply the consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment after Plato's time (even by Plato himself in his Parmenides!), but unfortunately resurfaces from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes in his Meditations, and now again with contemporary bioethics.

And as in the question of when a human being begins, if the science used to ground these philosophical "personhood" arguments is incorrect, the conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that incorrect science) are also incorrect and invalid.

There is no method whatsoever that either side can use, currently, to prove one way or another, when personhood begins to exist.

My guess though, your argument comes from one thing: emotion.

Why are you so convinced I am emotionally invested in this conversation or argument?

Do you feel the need to childishly lash out at anyone debating a subject with yourself?