Killing a human person ("soul") is normally a murder -- unless it is done as self-defense against a violent attacker. However, letting a single gender cell die (in menstruation) is not a murder: the single gender apparently has no "soul" -- and it cannot be considered a person. The question is: when does a gender cell get a "soul" and become a person? The easy answer, often heard, is that when the gender cell is fertilized, it immediately gets a "soul" and becomes a fully independent human person. But this answer is far too easy to avoid great difficulties, when the case is studied more closely. Wearing a contraceptive spiral means that woman's gender cell GETS FERTILIZED and starts to develop normally, only dying when the next menstruation begins -- the "pre-fetus" being already one to three weeks of age. So, if the fertilized gender cell already has a "soul" and is a fully independent human person -- as the easy answer suggested -- then wearing a contraceptive spiral means A MURDER once a month. Great difficulties... yes, the answer was far TOO EASY to be true. So, is wearing a contraceptive spiral really A MURDER -- morally comparable to driving over a schoolgirl by car just for fun? I have the logical tendency to greatly doubt that this would be the case. A schoolgirl evidently is a "person" that has a "soul": thanks to her brain cells, she has emotions, an independent will, an ability to make moral choices, and even an abilility to realize God's existence. Thanks to NOT HAVING brain cells, the two-week-old "pre-fetus" swimming around the contraceptive spiral lacks all the aforementioned qualities, from which we recognize that the schoolgirl was a "person" with a "soul". Thanks to NOT HAVING brain cells, my fern looks like a mere plant to me -- not a person with a "soul". But thanks to her brain cells, my cat again has all the aforementioned characteristics of a personality and a "soul", only excluding the ability to realize God's existence. (The Old Testament speaks of the souls of animals... yet without giving them any religious significance.) In my personal opinion it is not a crime against God (lack of Christian love) to wear a contraceptive spiral -- and even less it is a crime against man (murder). This stance means that I consider the death of the two-week-old "pre-fetus" a morally insignificant issue -- and I would allow any wife to make such a decision when her family is numerous enough. I would never justify murder, however, so I need to logically explain why I regard the death of a two-week-old "pre-fetus" as morally less significant than the death of a schoolgirl. I have come to the conclusion that without brain cells there can be no "soul" or "personality" (in this present earthly reality). On the other hand, I have also come to the conclusion that whenever a creature of any kind has any amount of brain cells, it must have a "soul" with basically all the characteristics that my cat has -- even though the relative extent of these characteristics may vary greatky. And if the "soul" is a human being, he also has at least a developing capacity to realize God's existence. Having made these conclusions, I find some understanding for the doctors who unplug from hospital devices a brain-dead person -- whose body could still be maintained in life for months or even years. Where there is no potential capacity for brain activity, no "soul" is present, and no person is present. No matter how long the body lives after the death (or departure from this life) of the soul, what remains alive is only a mere plant -- morally comparable to my fern on the table here. If a live body without a "soul" and without personality can exist at the gates of death, then it can exist at the gates of birth as well. Who defines where the line exactly goes in these cases, indeed makes a decision of significant moral weight. Therefore I hope that whoever makes such decisions, is an expert not only of medicine, but also of theology, and understands of these things more than I ever will.