The problem of using a undefined term of person in the convention.

I questioned among others the use of the term person. Here my rational

I wrote that comment with the background of the personhood debate among bioethicists where increasingly the term person is linked to a certain set of cognitive abilities. Certain human being might not be seen as persons in the future (newborns, people with a certain low level of
cognitive awareness e.g. Alzheimer people/people with other cognitive limitations, people in
coma)... Now most people are and will be seen in the future as persons and therefore are safe. But for disabled people this term has quite a few consequences. So in order to preempt the situation that changes in the
understanding of what a person is would lead to the situation that some disabled people are not covered by the convention anymore I suggest that the term person is defined within the disability reality like saying that
cognitive abilities should not be a prerequisition for being a person or something like that. THat would safeguard many disabled people from the danger of the ongoing debate about personhood.

My suggestion is to use some thing like that

"Acknowledging (or any other word) that no attribute of abilities is need in order to be seen and treated as a person"
The below solution does not work as it still aaumes that every people with disabilities are seen as persons. Newborns might not be seen as persons in the future. THat has nothing to do with disability per se.

"Comment: Persons with disabilities have the same human rights as any
other
person and the exercise of these rights is the central purpose of the
Convention. There should not be any possible implication that different
rights apply to persons with disability. Therefore, the first objective
should be to "Promote, protect, and ensure the exercise and full enjoyment
by all persons with disabilities of their human rights, on a
non-discriminatory basis to all persons, regardless of their disability."
"