When a haploid sperm cell meets a haploid egg cell, they form a diploid zygote, which has the same exact DNA that the fully developed baby will have- and exactly as much of the DNA. This zygote, having human DNA, also carries out the basic life processes of all life: it "eats", makes waste, reproduces (this would be asexual reproduction to make more cells), can react to the environment, grows, etc. Bacteria can do all of the same things and they are only one cell each. Nobody says they're not alive.

life started trillions of years ago when protein molecules or w/e were able to form a sequence that was able to create the very first living object (a cell).

That cell divided and mutated to form other things. skip a few trillion years and here we are.

Now, if you're talking about abortion... well, like i said, life was already around way before that. If anything, it's most likely that all of us (unless some other cells came from another planet through an asteroid or something) have all come from the same exact life form.

Let's face it, abortion is built on morals and NOT ethics. You find it morally wrong to kill a fetus. Old school catholics find it morally wrong to kill sperm.

To me, the only thing that can ethically be supported is once the fetus has consciousness it should be considered an individual. Sure, but we still don't really know when that is. It varies.

Me? I think the human race is tainted enough with morons and the last thing we need is more morons, especially if the parents didn't want them in the first place. As human beings we need to focus on important issues, getting our lives fixed. We can't tell every pregnant teenager to live with the consequences. This just spawns more irresponsible idiots and bad upbringings. Trust me, young mothers who have to work 3 jobs just to support her child (since she couldn't get a college education with a child to pay for) is not good for society.

I'm all for individualism, but I don't really consider fetuses to be individuals in the first place. Why should REAL individuals have to care for surreal individuals?

This is a loaded question, since there's no clear definition for what constitutes "life".

Using Biology's definition, there are 7 characteristics that living organisms exhibit:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Since the question is actually asking "when does the life of a child start", all 7 criteria are not met until puberty.

For a human, when some form of consciousness begins, which the best we can guess is around the 3rd trimester. While there is not much more consciousness than an insect, we give it credence because of its potential to become a human.

It's a good compromise between the two irreconcilable views, pro-life and pro-choice, unfortunately some would rather kill fully conscious adults with a family and friends of their own than compromise on this, but w/e.

For animals I think it depends. We treat all animals basically the same, like in some countries you eat monkey, but emotionally primates are not much different than us - Bonobo, the Forgotten Ape: De Waal & Lanting. Other animals like chickens, it's debatable whether they reach much consciousness beyond that of say a fetus in the 8th month, but hardly anyone pays much attention to it because there's no further potential.

The whole thing is a little silly actually. From a strictly logical point considering how small all living things are the difference between us, the highest form we know of, and say that of an ant, is barely noticable. But really all we can do is make these kinds of moral judgements from our own perspective, and unless a god or some superior alien intelligence danes to "show us the way," it's important we continue to compromise with civility.

If we are talking about conception I think it's rather obvious. Both the egg and sperm are living, therefore it is life throughout. Furthermore when the DNA of the egg and sperm combine we now have a new and distinct creature. In the case of human sperm and egg; you now have a human being in the early stages of it's development. It was always alive but it is now a unique and distinct human being.

If we are talking about the ontology of life; I am convinced we are talking about ultimate reality, something our creator is. Since our creator is the sine qua non of the cosmos and everything in it, then life is contingent upon Him. Therefore since He is the source of life and He is eternal, than life must also be eternal.

So then if we take the above statements we can see that at some point our creator breathed life into matter and made living creatures. And from our present time all the way back there is a continuous thread of life that leads ultimately to the giver of life.

Life starts at consciousness. Life ends when you are (permanently) no longer conscious, so why shouldn't life begin that way? There are diseases that rot your body from the inside out and you have the potential to die, yet you still live because you are conscious of your self and your body.

If it is all about potential, consider this: The plant you walk on that looks like grass has the potential to become a great shade giving tree. The flora of endangered rain forests have the potential to become life-giving nutrients for the fauna of the forests, yet we cut those down. The fruits that we eat have the potential to kill us through an allergic reaction. The difference is consciousness. These things are not conscious like the human mind is conscious and so we don't think about it.

Let us look at consciousness: Consciousness depends on our neurons being able to communicate with each other; all the medical evidence and understanding we have in medicine and neuroscience points to consciousness and awareness arising out of cell interactions. If this is the case then the neurons have to be mature enough to develop an action potential. Myelin sheaths have to be developed so that the nerve cell is sufficiently insulated so that the charge that is transmitted is not interfered with or lost. Lastly, the body must produce neurotransmitters, chemicals that allow the charge from one neuron to be transmitted to the next neuron.

So life begins after and not before these three conditions are met.

At the point when without an abortion or outside factor, a baby will eventually be born.

Even if it's just a zygote it will eventually be a person. It's all about potential. Therefore the masturbation (sperm killing) argument is invalid.

If one person can change the world, so can one abortion.

Life starts when you want it to. Its ready when your ready. Its based on whether you believe life has a purpose