system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Abortion is moral because of lack of sentience and therefore lack of desires

I know abortion posts are probably fairly common, but my point here is one I haven't seen specifically addressed. 

On a legal and practical level I think you can make strong arguments for the pro-choice position pretty close to the point of birth. However I do also think the moral position is very justifiable, at least for part of the pregnancy. 

Here are three points: 

Point a) Currently conscious and experiencing sentience

Point b) Will at some point in the future be conscious and experience sentience

Point c) At some point in the past been conscious and experienced sentience

Now I believe it is immoral to kill a being that falls under point a), however I don't think either b) or c) *on their own* mean it would be immoral to kill. I think you need *both* of them. As if someone doesn't know they will ever experience consciousness, then you aren't taking away anything form them by killing them, as they had no desires (to be clear a "desire" is literally anything that a person could expect/want. I don't mean grand desires like "I want to be rich". Just any expectation that you will still be conscious tomorrow could be classed as a "desire"), and if they can't ever be conscious again, you aren't taking experience away by killing them, they already had 0 potential for future experience. Some examples: 

1) A "braindead" person who will never wake up, only being kept alive by machines. - I don't think it is immoral to kill this person, they are not conscious, and never will be again. You are not taking experience that they may have desired away from them. 

2) A sleeping person - I believe it is immoral to kill a sleeping person, as, even though they are not currently a), they are b) **and** c). They have desires, as they have been conscious in the past, and, all else equal, will be conscious in the future. 

3) A Fetus (before 18 weeks or whenever consciousness begins) - I don't believe killing this being would be immoral, they don't have desires, therefore by killing them you are not taking away their desires. The fact they will have desires in the future is irrelevant, as they don't expect to have them. 

To be very clear about terms, by "conscious and sentient" I basically just mean has the ability to think and have desires, but is also aware.
gpt
Under your axioms (it's only immoral to kill someone that has experienced sentience and will experience it again), your logic is sound, even if many people will disagree with some of its implications.

However, these axioms are based on just what *you* feel - why would they hold universally, or, in fact, in what way is your argument more than a slight generalization, without external justification, of "I feel that abortion is moral"?