It is you who has created the category of potential person and promptly removed them from the protected species category. It's a convenient bit of sophistry which relieves you advocating unjustifiable homicide.
There's really nothing reasonable about killing something which given time will be a person, and claiming you have not killed the person it would eventually be.
Why have you lumped justifiable homicide for self defense, assisted suicide, and abortion in the same category? What do they have in common?
A zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus are indeed potential persons. A potential person is not a person.
I have not lumped homicide for self defense, assisted suicice, and abortion in the same category. Just the opposite. Self-defense homicides and assisted sucide are examples of killing someone, i.e., a person. My point is that abortion is not taking the life of someone, i.e., a person, so manifestly I have not lumped abortion in the same category as the other two.
There is no such thing as causing harm to a potential person (via abortion, in this case). You can’t harm a nonexistent person.
The common element our midnight attacker, elderly friend, and not yet a person share, is if they make enough trouble, the normal protection for sacred life is forfeit. There is no need for the fiction they are not a life, which might one day have blue eyes, smoke cigars and have this conversation.
As for the billions of half-not yet a persons lost down the drain everyday, if you opened your pantry to see the flour missing, you would not say, "What happened to my cake?" anymore than finding the oven open and empty would elicit, "What happened to my batter?"