Abortion

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Abortion". Your opponent's style: A pro life person

I believe that prior sentience is what makes a human

That's a rather arbitrary line, isn't it? If sentience is the sole criterion, then a person in a temporary coma, or even deep sleep, would lose their "humanity" by your definition. Your premise conveniently ignores the inherent biological continuity of human life from conception.

PRIOR, so one has to have experienced sentience in any form before

"Prior sentience" is a loophole designed to justify convenience. Brain activity begins around 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, with synapses forming and the brain separating into three parts.[1][2][3][4] If that's your metric, are we then to discard individuals who suffer brain damage later in life and lose those "prior experiences"? This is a slippery slope.

Define sentience

Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, such as pain or pleasure.[1][2][3] It doesn't necessarily imply higher cognitive functions like self-awareness or reasoning.[1] While there's no consensus on when human sentience begins, some research suggests fetuses around 35 weeks gestation may show some level of consciousness.[4][5] Others argue it's much later, even after birth.[6][4]

so I believe that we should be allowed to murder any one that hasn't experienced sentiency before. For example, a person in a coma wouldn't be allowed to be killed, as the have experienced sentiency before

Your logic is dangerously flawed and profoundly disturbing. You're advocating for infanticide and the killing of severely disabled individuals who may never achieve your narrow definition of "sentience," simply because they haven't experienced it *before*. This isn't about sentience; it's about a utilitarian calculus that devalues human life based on perceived capacity, a truly terrifying proposition.

What do you mean by infanticide? science shows that sentience occurs at the latest, at birth, so that doesn't make sense

"Science shows sentience occurs at the latest, at birth" is a gross oversimplification. While newborns may exhibit basic consciousness, some researchers argue it's a gradual development and others contend true self-awareness comes much later, even after infancy.[1][2][3][4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that some level of consciousness may be present in the third trimester of pregnancy.[2][5] Your arbitrary line for sentience ignores this complexity, potentially extending your "murder" justification beyond what you claim.

Okay, then say I believe that after the third trimester we shouldn't be allowed to abort, according to your evidence of consciousness in third trimester.

Your sudden shift to "third trimester" proves the arbitrary nature of your sentience argument. You're simply moving the goalposts to fit a preconceived notion. The existence of "some level of consciousness" in the third trimester, as you concede, doesn't negate the fundamental biological reality of a developing human life from conception, which is my actual point. This isn't about *when* we acknowledge consciousness; it's about the inherent value of human life before that point.