I wouldn't argue that if I were you. Who says trees aren't sentient? They may be made of fibers of cellulose, but plants and trees both respond to stimulus. Perhaps they think "slower" and of a different way.

The general consensus is that trees aren't sentient. They may very well be - but that's beyond the scope of this particular argument.

The original assertion is that people are being logically inconsistent by wanting to sacrifice the young tree, yet reluctant to sacrifice the young child. Based on the premise of tree non-sentience, it is entirely logically consistent that the two cases be decided differently.

The problem with tree sentience in general is that we have yet to define "think" in the context you are using it.