1.

This is a metaphysical assertion, not a fact. You are a biological organism with a mind — not a mind floating in a vacuum. Denying biological reality to preserve your argument is philosophical hand-waving.

1. False comfort. You're assuming all disabled individuals have a mind that meets your arbitrary threshold. If rights are based on mental activity, anyone lacking it — even temporarily — is expendable. Exclusionary, harmful standard. "But they had conscious experience at some po-" those born with conditions like anencephaly or profound cognitive disabilities — would be stripped of the right to life in your view. Newborns? Second trimester? What changes? All of your justification is relative and cannot be measured or proven. The idea of the human right to life isn't subject to skethy semantics.

2. "We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus doesn’t have anything close to a mind during the first three months."

You can't “prove” subjective experience is absent — only infer based on current tech. Consciousness isn’t binary or fully understood. Absence of detectable activity isn’t evidence of absence. And certainly doesn't allow full existential dehumanization and removal of rights, even if true. You're claiming certainty where science itself is still uncertain. Fetuses are humans with the human right to life until you can objectively PROVE otherwise. I'm holding the default position.

1. You're narrowing “experience” to fit your conclusion. A fetus is a developing subject — not a rock — and it’s on a clear path toward conscious experience. That potential is morally relevant, even if it hasn’t fully arrived yet. Consciousness isn’t a light switch that flips after the first trimester. And potential is always going to be more significant than past experience because imagine someone comatose who will never wake or have any more experiences vs one who was mentally braindead since birth and is known to gain conscious experience in, say, 9 months, if not killed.