False/Weak Analogy and/or anything else?

A recent argument of mine on a debate forum was titled When exactly does human life begin? A person responded by saying the following:

to me it’s like asking on what day does a bald man become bald? Or on what day did Latin become Italian?

The argument I put forward was the following:

Out of the following scientific views, what do you think is the strongest argument for when an ontological human individual life begins. And What do you think holds to be the strongest in terms of the viability of personhood?

• Metabolic View
• Genetic View
• Embryological View
• Neurological View
• Ecological/Technological View

Out of all of them, I find the genetic view to be the weakest. The genetic view is also one that is favored by a lot of the public, especially anti-abortionist activists. The genetic view is that human life does begin at conception. However, there are multiple scientific studies that contradict this notion.

One the argument that attempts to contradict the conclusions made from various studies about life not beginning at conception is what Alan Holland said which was that just because a zygote is capable of dividing does not mean it isn't an individual before it divides. By contrast, however, one could contend still that neither does this mean it is an individual; it's just a zygote. Furthermore, other proponents of the genetic view go on to claim that the key point is that human life may begin as a result of the zygote. This is where I also personally think the argument via conception breaks down. Because by stating that a zygote may become human life is not that much different than saying that sperm used in the right manner may also become a human life one day. 

Moreover, the stances that I personally deem to be the strongest are both the Embryological and metabolic view. The Embryological view is the stage at which the beginning development of individuation has begun, approximately three weeks after pregnancy.  My reason for finding this a strong stance is due to the aforementioned individuation development as well as the fact that at this point the unborn can no longer divide into multiple other individuals. The metabolic view is that sperm and eggs should be considered living organisms which they are by the way but these proponents also go on to say that they should be treated as any other living organism. The metabolic view is a strong one because it is in alignment with the fact that human life, in general, begins before conception. In fact, certain things have to be alive in order to create new living things. However, with the Embryological view, I think this is advocating that single human life has begun at this stage which is at the stage of gastrulation.

With respect to the other views I think they are bordering more onto what constitutes viability and person-hood. The Ecological/Technological view is more about if and when an unborn can survive outside the womb. With the Neurological view, I think there is some overlap with when human life begins and when personhood begins. I think both of these stances do hold some merit at least up to the point after the 24th week of pregnancy. However, not so much merit with regards to when human life actually begins. 

In summary, there are few things that we can be almost certain of with regard to the abortion debate. For one, that is that there is no strong scientific consensus on when human life beings. However, most of the medical profession and the government, at least the British Government is that after 24 weeks of pregnancy you need a very good reason for abortion. And further to that, the abortion debate remains a highly controversial debate with a barrage of moral complexities. 

References:
http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

The quote at the start is the argument of the beardhttps://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-of-the-Beard 

I'm not sure if when an embryo is considered to constitute life is even relevant to the issue, what seems to be important is bodily autonomy, that you can't force someone else to sustain another person. Taking away the apparatus to survive is not murder. This isn't a matter of logic and not a simple matter, though there are certainly times when fallacies  such as appeal to emotion are invoked. 

A common problem I see in the abortion debate is debaters conflating when human life begins with the moral acceptability of abortion. Many people opposed to abortion are fine with ending human life through either the death penalty or war. The whole argument of "when does human life begin" may just be a rabbit hole (or a Red Herring ).

To your direct question...

The response to your question about when human life beings was

to me it’s like asking on what day does a bald man become bald? Or on what day did Latin become Italian?

This answer is fine. The reason is, the person has indirectly shared their opinion that they don't see human life beginning at a point, but rather they see it as a process that happens over time. Is that true? That gets into the facts as well as the philosophical, and religious views. The point is, assuming they hold the "life is a process not a point" view, the analogy is strong one.