Quoting and commenting on another poster:

You have played the silly dictionary game before and I have no doubt whatsoever that you are smart enough to know how dishonest it is, but you persist in pretending your logical fallacy of equivocation is not a fallacy.

At what point does that non-being become a being, and what in the definition of "being" establishes that thresh-hold? Therefore to say, ". . . by all the empirical evidence, an embryo is clearly a human being," is (if you'll pardon me using your phrase) "playing linguistic games", because the phrase "human being" is itself not defined in empirical terms.

-If you have a source that defines a human being in empirically measurable terms, I would be glad to consider it. This is not quibbling: if it is your intent to accuse others of the crime of murder, then it is your responsibility to establish that a murder has in fact occurred. To do that, you must first establish that the subject is more than human tissue, that it is in fact a person - which in turn requires that we define precisely what a "person" or "human being" is

Division 3 - Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion

156. When a child becomes a human being A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.

(Hansard Extract)

Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows: A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed,
(b) it has independent circulation, or
(c) the navel string is severed.

In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)

DISCUSSION POINT: What is a human being?

What do the Courts say about this?

The courts have asked this question in relation to the foetus and a corpse. In this context the courts are very much guided by medical opinion, and less by moral principles. The central question they ask themselves is at what stage in the process of birth does a foetus become a person, and at what stage in the process of death does a person become a corpse. Essentially the courts have decided that foetuses and corpses are not persons.

I could continue in this vein but what should be obvious is that the universally accepted definition of "a human being" menaing a member of our society rather than the biological definition constantly equivocated on is a being, born, alive, and posessing human genome".

The silly dictionary game is the usual ploy of those who use this equivocation and the usual method is to present an analysis or definition of each word in the word phrase. This permits the equivocation to appear to be supported. What must be remembered is that when we, in a social or legal context, use the words "a human" or its equivelant "a human being" we are using a compound word (PDF) also known as a word phrase.[also see Chapter 2 ]

Equivocation is the use of a word or phrase which has more than one meaning in such a way that the meaning is not unequivocally clear. For example

 1. Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings. Example borrowed from Copi.)Source

The phrase "A human being" may mean a being that is human - by species or the phrase may refer to the sociological/legal concept of what we define as 'a human being' - which means 'a being born, alive, and human'.

To interchange these two meanings, as our resident equivocator, has consistently done in this thread and others, is not only to commit a logical fallacy of equivocation, it is also, since it is done knowingly and with malice for misleading reasons, lying.

The USSC covers this point well in its deliberations on Roe v Wade. However there are many more cases with similar discussions.

In this proceeding for writ of prohibition we are called upon to decide whether an unborn but viable fetus is a "human being" within the meaning of the California statute defining murder (Pen. Code, §187). We conclude that the Legislature did not intend such a meaning, and that for us to construe the statute to the contrary and apply it to this petitioner would exceed our judicial power and deny petitioner due process of law.

AND

Penal Code section 187 provides: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought." The dispositive question is whether the fetus which petitioner is accused of killing was, on February 23, 1969, a "human being" within the meaning of the statute. If it was not, petitioner cannot be charged with its "murder" and prohibition will lie.

AND

When the child is born, however, it becomes a human being, within the meaning of the law;

AND

21 "At common law, the weight of authority holds that an unborn child, in contemplation of law, has no existence as a human being separate from its mother, and that it therefore has no right of action for personal injuries inflicted upon it prior to its birth, by the wrongful conduct of another. Source

This is not unique to this trial nor is it unique to the USA. A friend ;) supplied this case for me also from Quebec (Canada) law which is based on the French Napoleonic Code. They also have a distinct sociological and legal meaning for "A human being"

Civil law -- Legal status of unborn child -- Father of unborn child obtaining an injunction to prevent mother from having an abortion -- Whether foetus recognized as a juridical person under the Civil Code -- Civil Code of Lower Canada, arts. 18, 338, 345, 608, 771, 838, 945, 2543.

This argument is not persuasive. A linguistic analysis cannot settle the difficult and controversial question of whether a foetus was intended by the National Assembly of Quebec to be a person under s. 1. What is required are substantive legal reasons which support a conclusion that the term "human being" has such and such a meaning. If the answer were as simple as the respondent contends, the question would not be before the Court nor would it be the subject of such intense debate in our society generally. The meaning of the term "human being" is a highly controversial issue, to say the least, and it cannot be settled by linguistic fiat.

The difficult issue of whether a foetus is a legal person cannot be settled by a purely linguistic argument that the plain meaning of the term "human being" includes foetuses. Like a purely scientific argument, a purely linguistic argument attempts to settle a legal debate by non-legal means. What is required are substantive legal reasons which support a conclusion that the term "human being" has a particular meaning. As for the differing usage of the terms "human being" and "person" in the Quebec Charter, it does not lead to the conclusion that a foetus is included within the term "human being". The more plausible explanation is that different terms were used in order to distinguish between physical and moral persons.

A consideration of the status of the foetus under the Civil Code supports the conclusion that a foetus is not a "human being" under the Quebec Charter. The provisions of the Code providing for the appointment of a curator for an unborn child and the provisions granting patrimonial interests to such child do not implicitly recognize that a foetus is a juridical person. Articles 338 and 345, like art. 945, simply provide a mechanism whereby the interests of the foetus described elsewhere in the Code can be protected. ............... A foetus is treated as a person only where it is necessary to do so in order to protect its interests after it is born. Source - Alternate Source

Eileen