Take a look at these logical fallacies I have found in researching the definition of a human. Some have based their decision on whether or not to support embryonic stem cell research depending on these assertions:
1) If a human being does not feel pain when he or she is destroyed, it is not immoral to destroy him or her.
2) A human embryo does not feel pain when he or she is destroyed.
3) Therefore, it is not immoral to destroy a human embryo.
1) If a human being has more cells, then that human being is more valuable.
2) An embryo has a very small number of cells.
3) Therefore, embryos are not very valuable.
These conclusions are in correct logical structure, however are not necessarily accurate.
Each individual defines a human being in his or her own way, basing the decision on personal, biased beliefs. As Greg Koukl writes in opposition of using human embryo’s for research: “By any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of the human race. From the moment of conception the embryo is an individual. The zygote is distinct from mother, father, and other living things, having her own unique genetic fingerprint.” This raises the idea of when exactly an embryo technically becomes defined as a human. Koukl considers the genetic make-up as the defining factor of an embryo becoming a human which is developed at the time of contraception. Therefore, Koukl believes it is wrong to use an embryo for research, believing it is destroying human life. The decision of whether to support or oppose embryonic stem cell research is based primarily on a personal definition of a human being.