Unique DNA as a defining characteristic of a human being is meaningless. The trees and grass in my yard all have unique DNA. The cows down the street and the birds flying overhead all have unique DNA. Unique DNA is a pretty universal and unremarkable characteristic. On the other hand, if ten thousand people were all cloned from the same population of stem cells, not a single one would have unique DNA or would have resulted from conception, yet they would each be a distinct individual. That is because they would each have a separate brain--the *only* factor that is demonstrably necessary for a person to exist. The only purpose for the rest of the body is to support the brain. Without the brain, the rest of the body is just meat.
And it is incomplete and utterly useless, capable of doing nothing by itself.
The trees and grass in my yard all have unique DNA. The cows down the street and the birds flying overhead all have unique DNA.
Those are all considered living beings aren't they? Each different even from individuals of their own kind.
On the other hand, if ten thousand people were all cloned from the same population of stem cells, not a single one would have unique DNA or would have resulted from conception, yet they would each be a distinct individual.
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.
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.
And in this post you try to conflate organ and organism. You are spewing the dead soul leftist bilge here. Meh!
If that is the definition of a living being then the grass you cited earlier is not a living being. (you cited it not me) But even many thousands of animals do not have brains so they would also not be considered living beings by that criteria.