I guess that depends at the very least on what kind of organism the eggs come from. Even die-hard Christians would agree that eggs & stem cells from a typical cow have no souls.

On the other hand, since so organisms really have objective souls...

That was sort of what I was thinking. If other animals do not have a soul, what makes us have one? In Hinduism...well....cows have souls.

It's subjective based on the religion. Soul or not to soul, that is the question.

Why are scientists working on this? I didn't think they believed in souls.

I thought many politicians don't have souls?

Actually, the idea that a "soul" begins at conception is a fairly recent one. I know that in jewish tradition life begins when the baby takes its first breath, and ancient christian belief was that the developing embryo passed through various stages and was ensouled at a certain point in the process, much later than conception. To claim "life starts at conception is a holy christian belief and therefore must be respected" is just propagandists trying to start trouble among the ignorant.

Look into it , You'll see that the higher the chance of infant mortality the longer they put off naming a child. Naming is part of accepting it as real or 'having a soul' I hear the most recent papal flip-flop is that their kids can be buried in graveyards even if they died before baptism.
thats quite a switch ,definately a sign of low infant mortality

I never really saw soul-status as the make-or-break in the stem cell/abortion debate. Sure, Jewish tradition may say life (the soul) begins with the first breath, but I'm sure it's still considered wrong to kill it right before that point.

The issue I hear debated way more is that of humanhood or personhood. While the issue of what makes something officially human is still quite debatable, it's much less ambiguous than whether or not that thing has a soul.