Something can be human and not a being as well as something can be a being and not human. While I'll grant you that the comparison of newborns and unborn babies right before birth as functionally identical touches upon this issue, it doesn't nearly begin to address it. It merely conflates being human with being a human being.
Let's see if I can make myself clearer by using an example.
Let's take these two agreed upon premises:
Unborn children are living human beings at conception due to points presented in video (unique DNA, growth, reaction to stimuli, etc.)
A human body missing it's head is not a living human being.
An unborn child is conceived, but an error in development causes it to form without a head. From the premises, it logically follows that the unborn child was a living human being at conception and not a living human being at birth. At what point did it cease to be a living human being? 8 months into pregnancy? 10 weeks? Sooner? Later?
The point I'm trying to make with this example is that eventually you get to a point in which the unborn child has all the qualities listed in premise 1 and premise 2 and thus can simultaneously be considered a living human being and not a living human being, an obvious contradiction. Something has to give way.
From what I've read of your posts, you seem to have a logical bent and we could probably stretch this out a bit more, but that's the gist of what I'm trying say. Such a discussion was lacking in the video.