From a post on First Things which provides a transcription of Singer’s answer to a question at a Princeton symposium on abortion:
Q (beginning at 1:25:22): When discussing at which point after birth we would give full moral status, you gave…a legal or public policy point about practicality… Forgetting the practical or public policy questions, if a person is a self aware individual and self awareness isn’t conferred by birth, and we use mirror tests to determine self awarness…at what point do you think an infant would pass the mirror test and therefore be self aware and be considered a person.
Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.
The final phrase of Singer’s answer can be taken to mean that, while children under two aren’t full people, our laws shouldn’t reflect that, because, well because society would find it distasteful to strip human rights away from children outside of the womb the way it has dehumanised them and stripped away their human rights inside the womb.
HT: Trevin Wax.
mgpcpastor's blog 
Hello, do you think self-awareness has moral value? do you think a 3yo child has the same self-awareness of a newborn?
Self awareness has moral value.
It is not an adequate measure of humanity, it does contribute to how human action is judged.
A normally developing three year old will have more self-awareness than a newborn.
A normally developing three year old may have more self-awareness that a profoundly retarded adult.
That does not make the three year old more human.
good. so what does it mean for you that it “has moral value”?
If individual A has more self awareness than individual B, is there any situation in which you think we should treat A differently than B *because* of this difference in self awareness?
If there’s no situation in which that makes a difference I would say that different moral values have no practical consequences. I would expect you to disagree with this.
I think we treat our new-borns and our three year olds differently and that some of the difference in the way we treat them stems from their differences in self-awareness.
The differences in their treatment are not grounded in a notion that one is less human that the other, but by concern for their appropriate development and growth as humans.
The idea of moral value and self-awareness I had in mind comes from the idea that children and adults can be judged differently even though they have performed the same wrong action based on a minor’s lesser awareness of the full ramifications of their action.
Am I using specific terminology wrongly?
I think that is the difference usually made between moral agents and moral patients. We become moral agents only around the second year, we when become aware, as you said, of the ramifications of our actions, and can be held responsible for them.
Singer said: “you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years”
I don’t see much wrong in that statement.