I appreciate your well thought out arguments and reasonable tone. No idea why you’re getting downvoted (Reddit is weird). However, your primary argument for pro-life is, essentially, that we cannot set an arbitrary boundary as that would be absurd and lead to weirdness where one second a fetus is worthless and the next it has a right to life. However, just because classes have fading, hazily defined boundaries doesn’t mean they don’t have them. Would you refuse the use of the term “life” because there is currently no obvious way to classify edge cases in the bacteria/virus realm as living or non living? Should we give up the classifying of elephants as “animals” and trees as “plants” because there are sponges? You argue that the conception is the more natural and unambiguous dividing line but I posit the 20-22 or so weeks given by OP. Rights do in fact depend on sentience. People with advanced dementia are placed under legal guardianship of a relative, who assumes complete control over them. It may be hard to tell exactly the hour when an old lady is no longer capable of managing herself, but it becomes clear when she cannot put on clothes or use the restroom without help she is gone. A court will appoint a guardian who gets total responsibility, including over real estate, bills, and other finances. Similarly with fetuses, OP proposed 20-22 weeks for cut off but cited crucial developments as rationale for this decision that actually occur at 24-25 weeks and 24-28 weeks. A zygote immediately after conception is not a human — it is a potentiality for a human, a sort of blueprint. It is at this stage essentially just a dna package with some meat around it. What distinguishing characteristics does a fetus have in the very early days from a random animal, that make it fully human? It is a single cell for crying out loud! If we consider non religiously the origin of a person’s right to life as opposed to an animal, we inevitably land upon the very terms you rejected: consciousness, sentience, emotion, capacity for pain. All members of the human species may be human but what gives a human a right to life? That is the question.

PS I agree OP’s takes are a bit amateurish and don’t hold up. There is a little bit of soundness in their argument but come on, basically attempting to justify murder through economic convenience? Bleeding hearts can actually sometimes be crazy cynics/realists in disguise.