----------------------------------

My opinions on Quickening wouldn't be relevant, that happens after both conception and when the ova implants into the uterine wall. 

My problem with the "life begins at conception" stance is that the whole idea of when life begins is, in reality, difficult to pin down. Both the egg and sperm are alive as are the people they come from. The zygote is alive. Once the zygote grows to a blastocyst it travels to the uterus and must attach to the uterine wall for a pregnancy to be viable. Something like 50% of the time the ova fails to implant into uterine wall. Life, like many things, exist on a spectrum and when it begins isn't something that the medical community, biologists or philosophers seem to be able to reach consensus on. On this topic I choose to believe that if they can't arrive at a consensus my stance should be that people may have beliefs about when life begins but no one knows.

I suppose the real question should be "When is a person created?" and that is also a pretty divisive question and, I think, what many people are debating when they talk about when life begins.

While you being here reading this may be a 1:1 certainty, at conception your specific existence was around 1:100,000, with Neil deGrasse Tyson having famously estimated the probability of your exact existence across all ancestry being one in a number I can’t copy and paste into this forum (too big, doesn’t format appropriately), but represents a number vastly larger than the total number of atoms in the known universe. 

If that information doesn’t fit the definition of “miraculous,” I don’t know what does, and serves personally to me as the basis for my belief that killing another person is always wrong, unless in self-defense. 

But there are many pragmatic reasons to not apply that reasoning to a fetus. So would life become sacrosanct at something like “the moment of first breath”? Or “the moment of capability to draw first breath”? 

It’s too late to stop that from happening, but I do believe that living ethically within the system should require us to only “slaughter” as needed to maintain, rather than disrupt in the name of more unsustainable growth. Of course this is hardly “new” thinking, it’s just not the approach adopted by our culture as it exists today.