Not necessarilly. Identical twins have the same set of human DNA. Yet they are considered different people. Therefore it's not the genetic code that defines them as a person.
The only possible reason anyone can possibly have to question the humanity of a baby from conception is so that they can kill it without any guilt or ethical or moral consequences (so they think). If it's not human, it's not murder so let's label it as *not human* so that we can *dispose of it* in any way we see fit. Murder by any other name...
You're begging the question here. You're assuming the point of conception is what makes it a person. Therefore the only reason to not declare it a person, would be some nefarious intent.
The fact is that Jewish law holds that the fetus is due respect as a potential human, but is not yet a human. The specific basis of this is Exodus 21:22, in which accidentally causing a miscarriage is punished by a fine, but accidentally injuring the mother falls under the old eye-for-an-eye. This clearly indicates that the mother's life is worth more than the fetus.
As noted, a zygote is due respect as a potential human being. As such, abortion as birth control strikes me as savage and I am hesitant to support embryonic stem cell research. However, in the case of IVF -- the attempt to create a child for a couple who could not otherwise have one -- I have only minimal moral scruples.
OK, I'm game. Give me another reason for deciding that at some point in a persons life, they aren't human?