You're begging the question that one of the following two is false:
1. The embryos in question are human, innocent, and alive.
2. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.
I'm going to infer that you're begging the question that (1) is false. Your argument seems to be an appeal to popularity: most people disbelieve x, therefore x is false. But this doesn't follow. I'd like you to give your reasons as to why it's not true.
This is the fourth time in this thread that you have attempted to reiterate this argument.
Nearly everyone disagreeing with you is contesting your implication that an embryo is "a human" as opposed to "a potential human", and they further believe that "a potential human" does not have the same rights as "a human".
You don't appear to have a follow-up to that argument other than "isn't that just your opinion." In order to convince people, you will probably need a better answer.
> You don't appear to have a follow-up to that argument other than "isn't that just your opinion."
This is patently false. I have tried to give arguments but people are generally incapable of understanding what "begging the question" means. I cannot convince people that are not rational.
Something is either a human, or it isn't. If it isn't a human, it has to be something else. Assume that the embryo is not a human. It follows that it has to be something else. If it is something else, what is it?
If you say "an embryo", this is circular (the embryo is an embryo). If you say "not a human", you're begging the question. What's left? You have to attribute it as some other species of being, but if you do this, you're committing yourself to the absurd proposition that humans conceive something other than humans, and these non-humans then become humans. This is complex (and absurd) in a way that saying that human beings conceive other human beings is not.
This isn't remotely unsatisfying to you? Is E. Coli E. Coli, or a quark a quark, only when we pass a law that says that it is?
You don't see how this view (arbitrarily assigning personhood as a result of legal decree, rather than assenting to the plain natural, empirically verifiable fact) commits you to all sorts of morally untenable positions?
For example, "because they're human beings" is no longer a tenable objection to the person who wants to kill Jews on account of the law they passed precluding Jews from personhood. How would someone, like you, give a defense when you no longer have recourse to the plain, natural, empirically verifiable fact that they are human beings?
1. The embryos in question are human, innocent, and alive. 2. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.
I'm going to infer that you're begging the question that (1) is false. Your argument seems to be an appeal to popularity: most people disbelieve x, therefore x is false. But this doesn't follow. I'd like you to give your reasons as to why it's not true.