Those are all considered living beings aren't they? Each different even from individuals of their own kind.
Does their unique DNA make them human beings? Does it make protection of their lives an absolute moral imperative? I would say not. DNA is not some magical, mystical substance. It is one of many biological molecules that form a living organism, a purely physical and non-magical molecule.
Based on the other criteria of a living being, able to self-replicate its own cells which would begin as soon as you combined the components present in normal gametes thus artificially mimicking conception.
You probably won't like to hear this, but the replication of cells is an automatic chemical process, much like any other chemical process. Under the right conditions, cells divide.
When you have to grasp at straws stretched so thin as to bring up laboratory manipulations of living organisms you have gone a long way from a simple scientific recognition of what makes a living organism a living organism. Even your manipulated examples have the basic biological processes of self-replication and the potential of species replication inherent in them. They only share the exact DNA of another being through a manipulated process that mimics the natural occurrence of identical twins.
I am trying to get through your rather thick sense of mysticism to get you to see the physical reality of the world around you, even of your own body. Relating my experience observing living human cells with unique DNA is hardly "grasping at straws." When you observe, every single day, that uniqueness of DNA is a meaningless parameter, that "human" is merely a descriptive term for a species and does not describe personhood, that human cells, no matter how well you take care of them, are not human beings and do not have the potential to become human beings--then you fully understand that a human being is far more than the physical characteristics of a cell.
When a human organism has differentiated to the point where it has a functional brain and is able to sense and respond to its environment, then it has assumed the one and only defining characteristic of a human being. Until and unless that occurs, no person exists. And when that brain ceases to function, the person no longer exists.
Try to understand what I am saying, and stop grasping at straws to try to give scientific status to your romantic religious belief that life "starts" at conception and that the zygote is as conscious and aware as a child that is several weeks post-conception. Your romantic notions fuel the pro-abort rejection of pro-life arguments as being mere religious views that can and should be dismissed.
Also, are you going to call every woman you meet a murderer, just because she has used contraceptives?
If we can't even agree on a definition of a 'living being' it is superfluous to debate what makes a living being a human being.
Also, are you going to call every woman you meet a murderer, just because she has used contraceptives?
Having failed completely to make any scientific argument for your POV you finally drop the semantics and sophistry and come to the essence of all of your arguments. Emotion.