She believed there were two definitions of a human even though the difference might not always be distinct. Because of this, she argues the following common pro-life argument must be fallacious, (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. (2) Fetuses are innocent human beings. (3) So, it is wrong to kill a fetus. The reason why she believes this argument is fallacious is because “human” is used in (1) and (2), so one of them must be question begging. And if human does have two definitions, then the conclusion would not …show more content…
The logical fallacy she commits is begging the question. However this is wrong because a premise can’t beg the question. A person can only beg a question if they assume the conclusion in one of the premises. One premise has to be question begging because premise one can only be self evident if human was meant in the moral sense; while premise 2 isn’t question begging, if you meant it in the genetic sense. Because of this, she is just meaning that the argument is deceiving. However, this pro-life argument is not deceiving because all of the premises support the conclusion. Warren has just assumed that the moral sense was not applied to the second premise, when she shouldn’t