Abortion

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

I think that as long as someone has NEVER experienced sentiency, we should be allowed to murder them. For example, we wouldn't be allowed to murder a person in a coma, as they have previously experienced sentiency before.

Your premise is fundamentally flawed; equating "sentiency" with the right to life is a dangerous oversimplification. The inherent potential for sentiency, or the biological status of a human organism, is what grants moral consideration, not a fleeting experience. If we only protect those who've *experienced* sentiency, what about infants or those with severe cognitive disabilities? This isn't about experience; it's about being.

What do you mean, what about infants? science shows that sentiency occurs between the third trimester and birth, so infants would be sentient and therefore not able to be murdered

Your appeal to "science" is selective at best. "Sentiency" itself is a complex, debated concept, not a simple switch. While some suggest rudimentary sensory responses appear in the third trimester, full awareness and higher cognitive functions are widely believed to develop much later, often well after birth.[1][2][3] So, by your own logic, many infants might not meet your "sentiency" threshold either.

which source shows your 'full awareness and higher cognitive functions are widely believed to develop much later, often well after birth' claim

"Full awareness" and "higher cognitive functions" are distinct from basic sensory responses. While newborns exhibit some basic awareness like recognizing their mother's voice, self-awareness and complex cognitive abilities, such as object permanence and the ability to form mental representations, develop gradually over months and even years after birth.[1][2][3][4][5] For instance, self-recognition in a mirror often appears between 18 and 24 months.[2][5] Therefore, a nuanced understanding of cognitive development directly undermines your simple "sentiency" threshold.

ok, my claim is that anyone as long as someone has NEVER experienced BASic sentiency, we should be allowed to murder them. For example, we wouldn't be allowed to murder a person in a coma, as they have previously experienced sentiency before.

Your refined claim still collapses under its own weight. If "basic sentiency" is the bar, then your argument for allowing murder before its onset applies to any stage of development prior to that, including infants who may not exhibit your undefined "basic sentiency" at birth. The moral question isn't about *when* an organism experiences something, but the inherent wrongness of ending a developing human life. Why does the *experience* of basic sentiency matter more than the *potential* for it?

No, infants have basic sentiency

"Basic sentiency" is still far too vague. If you mean the capacity to feel pain, studies show newborns react to painful stimuli, and some regions of the infant brain light up similarly to adults when experiencing pain.[1] However, the "emotional and interpretive understanding of pain" develops later, after birth.[2][3] So, while infants may feel pain, their *experience* of it isn't fully developed. Your argument hinges on an ill-defined and shifting target.

Well, there isn't anything wrong with ending a devolping life, as long as you end it before it is human

Your argument pivots on a false premise: the idea that a developing life is not "human" until some arbitrary point. Biologically, human life begins at fertilization. At this moment, a unique individual with its own complete human genome is created.[1][2][3][4][5] To suggest otherwise is to redefine "human" based on developmental stage, not biological reality, creating a convenient but unscientific distinction to justify ending that life.[6][4][7][8][5]