The reason religion is so powerful

[Mister Agenda]

Neo's reasoning was that the embryo is biologically human from conception. Any undamaged human cell is biologically human. Being biologically human doesn't make something a human being.

Right; he is using human as a noun—the embryo is a human being from conception. You're referring to human as an adjective—human hair.

Here's a word I learned from vulcanlogician: totipotency. It's the power of a cell to produce an entirely new organism.

So human genetics + totipotency + any other relevant factor = New Human (noun) organism.

Human zygotes meet this criteria. But without the cells in your cheeks achieving totipotency, for example, we cannot compare them to zygotes or call them human beings. Once they do that's another story.

An embryo being a human being from conception is your claim, that claim is not supported by biology. 'Being' is not a biological term, it's a philosophical term with the relevant meaning of 'the nature or essence of a person'. It's absurd to think that a cheek cell becomes a human being as soon as we can competenly clone a person from one.

---

3. Psychologists use animals ranging from mice to macaques in the study of behavior because we share many traits with them. I don't know how rabbits compare, but I suspect you've set a deceptively high bar. (Consider that you've potentially removed consciousness as a criteria for personhood.)

It's almost like there's a transition where a human organism goes from depending on a human host to survive and being able to survive without that host, and then we set the bar differently.