Well, that statement is dripping with irony anyway.
I dropped that word long ago. I have more recently used non-sentience, but not even that word in my previous post.
There is no logical fallacy. In defining H, logic isn't even used. I am making a formal description of the properties of a "definition". Dictionaries are replete with multiple definitions of words, for example Black gives two definitions of "person". So how do you consider a definition of a word with no surrounding context? You must display the full set of sub-definitions. That is what a dictionary does. In more formal terms, H={h1,h2,h3,...}. That is the notation used in expressing a set of things. And the set of definitions is the starting basis of any logical argument critically involving a word in a language.
How do you disambiguate a word used in some specific context? You choose one sub-definition in that set, which is closest to the meaning the author of a sentence or paragraph intended.
There are four definitions of human in my abridged dictionary. They represent h1-h4, for example. An unabridged dictionary most likely has many more. So the USSC definition of "person" as used in the constitution is not defined unambiguously. Black has two definitions of person, P = {p1,p2}. However, the context of the constitution might direct one to use the definition "human" rather than "corporation". But what do they mean by human? Which definition do they use. That comes from context too. Biological definitions of a zygote use the word "human". What do they mean by "human"? Well, the context is a cell that contains a chemical Deoxyribonucleic acid, which is a template for a Homo Sapiens.
You did not prove that the disambiguation of the word "human" in the two contexts of your "proof" are one and the same sub-definition of "human". You have not proved your point.
I presume you think that what makes a dead zygote human is the encapsulated DNA since dead means not alive. If you say a dead zygote is a "human being", then in essence you are also saying that the definition of person according to Black leads to the conclusion that the constitution protects dead humans beings. You have entered a quagmire of logical inconsistency.
I am not making that claim. I am saying that the references of the scientists in your first point are the ones making that claim. That is the only definition that makes sense concerning the "humanness" of zygotes, especially dead zygotes. You have made the same claim when you insist that DNA is the primary characteristic of a human. (I have stated that DNA is a chemical template, not a characteristic of humanness.)
I can't see how you think that I am dogmatic when I am codifying or clarifying the concept of multiplicities in "definitions". You seem to be losing sight of the problems of multiple meanings and disambiguation of meanings in contexts, and you are being dogmatic simply stating that the two meanings are the same without proof or technical justification.
Finally, in this particular post, I am not making any "dogmatic" independent proofs. Please understand that I am trying to get away from the circularity of our previous dialogs where I see you continually digressing from the points I am trying to make. The focus should no longer be on (non)sentience, which I think is crucially important but you don't. Please don't think I am trying to make an alternate argument that I think the government should support. In this post, I am simply challenging your claim that you proved anything. In fact, I now think that your argument is further regressing into a logical quagmire.
