I believe that since I don't know when this occurs that I must assume it gets on at conception.

As soon as it starts to develop, but I don't really consider a zygote one because many eggs might get fertilized, and never get implanted to the uterine wall and never given a chance naturally to become a life.

I'm not actually sure. Gut reaction would be to say as soon as it's big enough to survive outside the womb - because then it's an entity in it's own right, not just an extension of the mother, I suppose. But then again... when it starts moving? Yes, I'll say that, since it's the first indication of being vaguely self-aware.

At the very moment that a spermatazoa penetrates an eggs membrane and fertilizes the egg the two combine their DNA materials. At this point the egg and sperm combination are a living being independant of the donors DNA, with its very own original and unique DNA pattern. The pattern is set for the rest of its life and will not change. It is a living being, an individual completely seperate from any other, which will continue to grow without guidance from any other source. It is even possible at this point to remove it from the mother and grow it in a different host, or even in a laboratory, outside of the womb. Unfortunatley it is totally dependant on the mother or some other, to provide nourishment and safety. The very first structures to be formed are the brain and nervous system, leading me to believe that the embryo is capable of rudimentary thought after the very first cell division. The dilemma for some people is what kind of thought or mental processes are required to call something alive. Others are more concerned with physical attributes of appearance and function. If we were to consider the intelligence or independance of a person to determine their status as living, or possessing a soul, this would affect their very worth or value to society and the corresponding right to live and other human rights. Not only for a fetus, though, but also for adults. A scale made to determine the status of a being as either dead or alive, living or not possessing or being a soul, would have to be universal, and universally applied, for it to be anything but an arbitrarily applied tool for labeling something as unworthy of life, for the satisfaction of the killers desires, and not an independant standard. So what if we consider the application of this to adults? For example, if we were to set a minimum IQ for a fetus to be considered alive, what if a man were fully grown, but could not surpass that mark? Would that person be considered to be not human, not living or otherwise have no human rights, either to life or freedom? Could that man be enslaved or killed without his master or killer being guilty of a crime? Similarly in a physical capacity, does a fetuses dependance on its mother or inability to act in its own interests mean it is not alive? Well, what of another fully grown man, disabled so that he can not move or talk, completely dependant on others to feed him, bathe him and care for his every physical need. Is this man not human or alive? Can we take such a man, like Stephen Hawking, and say that he has no human rights, do whatever we wish including killing him, with no fear of the consequences or retribution? I think that it is the same situation whether for a fetus, an embryo, child or adult. We can not make a judgement of their worth based on mental capacity or physical attributes. Every living man is equal, regardless of their IQ, physical strength or any other factor. We can not hold ourselves up as superior to any other for any reason, including race, gender, nationality or age. For you in America, does your constitution not guarantee these very things? Is there not a section which says you can not discriminate against someone on the basis of their age? Even thousands of years ago the writers of the Bible discussed this very topic, and in it the law given to the Isrealites through the prophets said that if a man struck a woman who was pregnant, and the baby actually came out of her dead, that the man was guilty of murder. It did not make exception for the age of the unborn child. Even in international courts, the UN tries to impose these very tenets of basic human rights on every nation in the world, saying that everyone, everywhere, should have freedom to live regardless of ethnicity, gender or age. Armies from all over the world fight people who disagree, trade sanctions and embargos are meplaced to try and prevent violations of human rights, people are brought before international courts to prsoecute them for violations against the human rights of others. So why is it allowed, in almost every developed nation, and the undeveloped, to kill someone on the basis of their age? It is because it is convenient. It is because people want to do whatever they want, whatever feels good. This includes premarital sex, extra-marital affairs, polygamy and incest, rape and fornication. What they don't want is to be responsible for these actions, to take care of a child, which act could interfere with their fun. The major problem is that the world leaders are also included amongst those serving their own desires. The ones making the laws regarding abortion are also the ones getting abortions for their mistresses and wives of fornication. Abortion is allowed because immoral people are allowed to lead us in our moral development. My own thoughts are that a fetus becomes a living soul at the moment of fertilization. At this point it is growing, reproducing cells, its brain is developing and is functional, controlling independantly the fetuses heart and other body functions, regulation of hormone production, thyroid function and every other aspect of it's own body. --------------------------------------------- Old School, I think it is reasonable, even common sense, to incorporate the known facts, that a zygote will grow and develop into a human being, whereas the cancerous tissue is a disease, which will not grow into a fully developed and independant life form, but will kill the host organism and then itself die, and is not a reproductive process but a destructive one. Also, the fact that the fetus would die in minutes in certain surroundings does not mean it is already lifeless, any more than the fact that if you were removed from the atmospehere of the earth you would die within minutes does not mean you are not now living. Also the fact that 40% of zygotes die does not mean the ones which live also died or are not living, any more than the fact that all people, everywhere, eventualy die, does not mean the ones now living are also dead or worthless.

From the moment the fetus starts being created.

Once it has a heart beat it's a person as far as I am concerned.

I don't. I don't believe in this romantic notions of 'living souls'. We're all just composites of flesh and blood.

what consequence does the soul of the unborn child suffer after abortion? are there any dark energies that will prevent or slow down this souls progression into other incarnations? if there are how can they be cleared? so far it seems that we are trying only to ease our conscience concerning the issue of abortion. is there a much larger issue that we are sweeping under the threshold of sacred life. . . and we don't even hold a memorial service to honor the child who had agreed to join it's earthly parents. mel

At the moment the egg is fertilized, i believe that it becomes life.

When it moves out of the house and gets a job.

I say that it becomes a living soul at the moment of conception, for when that happens a unique individual never again to be repeated is formed.

When it takes it's first breath - just MY opinion.

Hearing the heartbeat is what did it for me. Also feeling him move around inside me, also when I could see him move inside me. My thoughts were: wow there is really a human being inside of me!!