- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

When Does Human Life Begin?

The question of when a human life begins is a strictly scientific one and one for which the scientific community has had an empirical, internationally acknowledged answer for a very long time.

For more than a century, the field of human embryology has documented that in human sexual reproduction a new, whole, individual, living human being begins to exist at “first contact” between a sperm and an oocyte/“egg” (the beginning of the process known as fertilization.) Immediately when these two mere cells make first contact and fuse, organism proteins and enzymes specific to humans are produced. One new single-cell human being with his or her own new, unique, and complete set of human DNA begins to exist. This is an internationally recognized empirical fact that has been documented by the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development since 1942, and updated every year since then to the present by the international nomenclature committee (FIPAT). The 23 Carnegie Stages cover human development during the eight-week embryonic period, and a new human being is represented by Carnegie Stage 1a.

The facts surrounding the beginning of a human life are muddled today largely because of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade.  Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion states that the beginning of human life could not be determined, because the “disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology” were “unable to arrive at any consensus.”

What Justice Blackmun failed to acknowledge is that none of the academic disciplines he mentioned have any bearing on the scientific issue of when a human life begins. Human embryology is the only scientific field that specializes in the fine details of human reproduction and empirically documents the stages a human embryo passes through between first contact and the fetal period. The landmark Supreme Court decision was made without the testimony of a single human embryologist.


What doctors, philosophers, and theologians may be qualified to address is the philosophical question of when a human person begins to exist. Personhood refers to a specific set of rights and protections generally accorded to human beings, but society has never reached a universal consensus that all human beings should receive these rights. The rights of personhood have historically been denied to various groups.

Justice Blackmun’s opinion merged the biological with the philosophical. When a human person begins to exist is a philosophical issue.  By contrast, when a human being begins to exist is a scientific issue. Accurate science should be the starting point for resolving the philosophical question, not the reverse. As the philosophy dictum notes, “A small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors in the end.”

Because the science has been obscured in philosophy for so long, many people today still believe that the scientific question is not settled.

Contend Projects seeks to reverse this deeply harmful trend. We are working to make the empirical, internationally acknowledged scientific fact of when a human being normally begins simple and accessible for everyone. Accurately informed decisions about human reproduction are relevant to everyone.

Brooke Stanton is the Founder and CEO of Contend Projects.

75 Comments (Open | Close)

75 Comments To "When Does Human Life Begin?"

#1 Comment By a commenter On June 3, 2017 @ 9:01 am

Lots of biology misunderstanding to deal with in these comments. I have a busy day but I’ll get started and try to get through as much as possible.

“a human sperm and a human egg are alive, before fertilization. human life does not begin with fertilization.”

True, in a sense. All life began with the first living being, presumably some kind of prokaryote. All human beings ultimately derive from that initial life, which actually makes human life even more precious, because we can’t create life ourselves or resurrect those who are dead.

However, a human sperm or egg, while alive, don’t constitute a human being because they aren’t complete in themselves. They are parts of someone else. A sperm must unite with an egg and an egg with a sperm in order to make a new human individual organism.

:This writer seems to have a poor grasp of what science fundamentally is. There must be a null hypothesis to be disproven, or there can be no scientific conclusion. This is absolutely fundamental to the practice of science at its most basic level.”

This is just an ad hominem. I’m a scientist so I’ll try to just stick with addressing the science and I’ll ignore the logical fallacies wherever possible. But, the author isn’t wrong on the science here.

” As the “beginning of life” is intrinsically unfalsifiable, there is no way to scientifically determine it.”

Not sure what is meant here. Former conceptions of where humans came from included the idea that the man provided the actual baby person and the woman was just the ground in which the person was grown. This was empirically shown to be false. Another popular idea was that life of all kinds continually springs from inanimate matter (simplifying here so I can move on before I have to do errands). Now, through experimentation, we know that although life can use inanimate matter as food, all life derives from pre-existing life.

“Those same “proteins and enzymes specific to humans” are present in my leg, but my leg isn’t a “living human” in the sense that I’m a “living human”. ”

This is true. But the conceptual difference between your leg and a living human is that your leg is part of a living human, and you are the whole of a living human. A fertilized egg is a whole living human at the single-celled stage of life. A gamete is a part of a living human.

“But an acorn is not an oak tree,”

That is a difference of developmental stage and semantics. An acorn is the same individual organism as the oak tree that it will eventually become. If you kill the acorn, you will also kill the oak tree. If you kill me today, I will also be gone tomorrow and the next day and the day after that.

I’ll try to do more later if I have time.

#2 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 3, 2017 @ 9:47 am

As the author Brooke Stanton accurately states, the life of a human being begins at fertilization: “A new, whole, individual, living human being begins to exist at ‘first contact’ between a sperm and an oocyte/’egg’ (the beginning of the process known as fertilization.)”

Some commenters believe that “fertilization” and “conception” have the same meaning and – indeed — before 1965 the two words were synonymous. But in 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed the definition of “conception” to the following: “conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

#3 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 3, 2017 @ 11:24 am

“According to the NIH, between 40% and 70% of al fertilized eggs either fail to implant or are spontaneously aborted or miscarried (Intelligent Design?). Just as a 21 year old has more “rights” than an 18 year old, or a 13 year old, a 3rd trimester fetus has more rights than a 2nd trimester fetus and a “one called human being” has essentially no rights. Roe v. Wade is a rational attempt to balance the accruing “rights” of the developing fetus with the established rights of the mother.”

Let’s stay in context. The twenty old does not have the right to take the life of the 18 year old. Nor does the 18 year old have the right to take the life of the 14 year old.

Despite the fact that in most states the twenty and eighteen year old may consume alcohol, no state permits any of then to the others life regardless of age. In the exact way children in the womb regardless of their stage of development are entitled to life.

So the gambit by those of the court that supported killing another human being in the court doesn’t make much sense at any level of their process.

This business of person-hood is really inconsequential. We don’t endorse the murder of the handicapped because they don’t fully express what we think they should comprehend as people. That suggests a rather arbitrary standard. If that is the standard, then a lot of parents have an out to get rid of their children, who engage in all manner of incomprehensible behavior.

I was told of five year old in a spelling context who could spell these rather complex words, but had no understanding of context. Surely, her lack of comprehension disqualifies her from being a human being. I two year old is absolutely considered a monstrous unrestrained beast do what he or she wants, when they want, how they want, according to whatever they want — inhuman – clearly not a person. And goodness gracious grandma, wets her pants and spits up her food. People advance that don’t regress.

The arbitrary standards for determining person-hood is beyond the scope of persons and as such demands prudence, such that no decision about a human being life is therefore determined. Hence the arbitrary nature of the Supreme Courts decision. They acknowledge the impossible and then proceed to do so. Excuse, not only is taking life in this manner unconstitutional based on:

1. arbitrary nature
2. the constitution makes no attempt to delimit personhood
3. doing so violates any standard of “due process”

Hence the second big peculiar turn, citizenship. The child in the womb has no legal rights to the constitution. Well, then, I guess one can start picking off illegals with deer rifles forthwith. Of course not.

All of the philosophical, legal, academic discussion was to disguise one simple goal. Protect the inconvenience of unwanted children. And avoid the struggle of bringing a human in this world and caring for that child’s being. And the right to kill that inconvenient human being, but minus any due process. I think children in and out of the womb are entitled to due process.

A position wholly unavoidable and in almost every case under the woman’s control. If she doesn’t want to have a child, well by the 1960’s she could prevent it.

1. Drugs

2. devices, of a myriad of shapes and sizes (I hear color as well)

3. Simply don’t engage in relational behaviors that lead to having children. You know those old fashioned tried and true methods: celibacy, abstinence. 100% effective.

A woman does have control of her body – she should exercise it. The constant refrain that anyone is denying a woman’s right to control her body is incorrect. She should do so, including saying, “no” to herself or someone else.

Sure miscarriages occur. And those resulting from natural occurrence we accept as part of life’s gives and takes. But as human beings, we not prone to endorse it.

Nor do we endorse rape or any circumstance in which a women is forced to engaged in relations. But in those rare circumstances that she could become pregnant, we continue to value her and the life of her child.

We protect both.

Just to be clear:

Black’s Law Definition of Person:
“A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.”

I do purchase products made in China, and Russia. And I disapprove of drones killing innocents. In fact, I think I am on record opposing Iraq and Afghanistan (an over extended mission) invasions.

#4 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 3, 2017 @ 11:27 am


I prefer to buy US products only poverty presses me otherwise as for what other nation states do, I can express my disagreement but the people of those states are responsible for their society. I live in the US, clearly a case of my glass house susceptible to rather large stones.

#5 Comment By John Dixon On June 3, 2017 @ 12:12 pm

“Arrant”, Taffy, “arrant”

You object to “Taffy”? You say it fails to encompass the totality of your humanity?

Perhaps the baby objects to “fetus”.

#6 Comment By themgt On June 3, 2017 @ 2:38 pm

Being a human being in a political/societal sense is necessarily different than a biological sense. It’s easiest perhaps to analogize this to issues with adults / end-of-life, e.g. someone who is completely brain-dead but could be kept alive with external support (also the status of a zygote). Is this a biologically a living human being? Sure. Must we as a society use artificial means to keep this human being alive? That is a much more complex question, and open to debate and a range of perspectives.

Similar questions would be:
* with a monozygotic twin, when does the second life begin?
* if (as is likely) we will soon have viable artificial womb technology, are we not ethically obligated to use it to bring all IVF embryos to term?
* if a mad scientist created 1,000,000 IVF zygote clones of himself, would we not upon discovery be ethically obligated to use artificial wombs to bring all these human beings to term? would not their destruction be akin to history’s worse genocides?

#7 Comment By dd On June 3, 2017 @ 3:19 pm

Couple of you made references and analogies to cells in the leg, etc in comparison to a single fertilized ovum.

You may want to look up “cell potency” and the difference between fully-differentiated cells and those that are not.

#8 Comment By DRK On June 3, 2017 @ 6:25 pm

But some people we think of as human beings have 45 chromosomes, or 44, or 48. Aren’t these people human as well? It is actally fairly common to have 45 instead of 46 chromosomes, about one in a thousand people do. So to be human cannot necessarily be defined as having 46 chromosomes.

#9 Comment By Devon On June 3, 2017 @ 10:14 pm

Great article. Thoughtful, factual, insightful with scientific facts backing everything!

#10 Comment By GunnarThalweg On June 4, 2017 @ 5:25 am

There is no doubt that every abortion ends a unique human life. I believe in a sliding scale of rights during gestation and maturity. I believe, for example, that there is no doubt that the biological process we call a human life begins at conception. What specific rights does such a being have? Certainly, very limited ones. Certainly, I would not allow such a being to drive, to drink, to vote, or to be left home alone.

I do believe that the biological process has a right to continue. It has an absolute right to attempt implantation. (In other words, just because a large percentage fail to achieve implantation does not give us the right to interfere with the ones that succeed.)

I find a purely biological argument merely one way to argue the case. (There are lots of ways to argue the abortion issue, and I have found that every one of them turns up pro-life.)

I like about this particularly argument. Human life is simply a biological process that scientifically and unequivocally begins at conception and ends when that process ceases, and the issue of teleology drives the process’s rights [i.e., the biological process has the right to continue to do the next thing required to continue the process].

What I like about it is the argument separates out the issues of morality and values, and removes the “snapshot” thinking we end up in when we speak of trimesters. This is a living being and it’s in a constant state of becoming something else. To end the process violently ends the being.

The question then becomes clear: Do we have the right to end the biological process or does the biological process have claims?

The answer to that question answers who we think we are. Because if the process has no rights, then neither does the biological process you call you. If violently ending that process is not killing, then violently ending the process known as you is not killing. There’s no such thing as killing, then.

In any case, this is only one way of looking at the issue. They all come up pro-life or pro-killing. You either justify killing or you don’t.

The issue of abortion-on-demand is the central moral question of our time. It forces you to answer a range of basic philosophical questions, and once you have your answers in place, you are one kind of person or another.

#11 Comment By James Drouin On June 4, 2017 @ 7:54 am

Roe v Wade was a purely political decision … the Justices simply weren’t going to render a Judgement that criminalized abortion.

#12 Comment By Tom Usher On June 4, 2017 @ 9:50 am

Ms. Stanton’s Contend Project website is replete with variances of the word “science,” “embryology,” “objective,” etc., and to her credit she admits that she’s not a scientist, tho that one was not hard to infer.

I know almost nothing about Ms. Stanton, but I bet she’s a fundamentalist Christian who was passionate on this issue long before she began her earnest campaign, her writing so full of logical errors it’s just sad. Ms. Stanton, are you courageous enough to tell us about your support for, or lack thereof, global climate change? About how old do you think planet Earth is?

No, we shall not receive answers to these simple questions.

#13 Comment By Tom Usher On June 4, 2017 @ 9:54 am

Also, TAC’s decision to publish Ms. Stanton’s article is typical of this group who, when religion and science collide, usually will side with religion over science.

In matters of the metaphysical, fine. But in matters of science, TAC’s tack is just ridiculous.

#14 Comment By Jaelle On June 4, 2017 @ 12:13 pm

Well then let’s all start jailing pregnant women who seek abortions, as well as their doctors and their staff and other enablers; force them all to give birth in jail; set up adoption systems for their babies (since of course these mothers won’t be allowed to keep their babies once they’re born), take off all birth control from the pharmacy shelves and send abortion underground. Rich women will be able to fly to countries to get their abortions so they’ll be fine. Like Brazil, where abortion is illegal yet thousands of women seek abortions every year (at even higher rates than in the US), poor women of course won’t be able to afford to fly to countries where abortion is legal, so they’ll be forced to have their babies in jail. Or die trying to get an abortion. And of course public funds to deal with all this will be plentiful. I can’t wait!

#15 Comment By grumpy realist On June 4, 2017 @ 5:38 pm

Is Brooke Stanton willing to carry the logic of this argument to its rational conclusion, namely that all women who have miscarriages at any stage of development should therefore be convicted of involuntary manslaughter?

Is Brooke willing to start going through women’s menstrual blood to check to see if there’s possibly a fertilized egg in there?

40% of fertilized eggs are estimated to not make it out the other end of the process. If that is true, why are the pro-lifers worrying about abortion? The real death rate is much earlier in the process and affects far more “people”. Why aren’t you demanding that medical research be turned towards dealing with the number of fertilized eggs which fail to implant/develop wrongly/get affected by the environment? Given the amount of mercury (a fetal toxin) which gets emitted in coal smoke, why aren’t you demanding that all coal-fueled power plants be shut down in the US?

#16 Comment By Robert Levine On June 5, 2017 @ 12:37 am

It’s the wrong question. The right question is: at what point does the state have a legitimate interest in forcing the potential mother to host the fetus?

If, for example, I was the only person who could give a life-saving bone marrow transfusion to someone I didn’t know, I would be the legitimate subject of criticism for not doing so. But that doesn’t mean that the government would be justified in forcing me to undergo surgery to provide that transfusion.

#17 Comment By Uncle Billy On June 5, 2017 @ 11:16 am

Life begins when the youngest child moves out and you move to a condo.

#18 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 5, 2017 @ 2:20 pm

“I know almost nothing about Ms. Stanton, but I bet she’s a fundamentalist Christian who was passionate on this issue long before she began her earnest campaign, her writing so full of logical errors it’s just sad. Ms. Stanton, are you courageous enough to tell us about your support for, or lack thereof, global climate change? About how old do you think planet Earth is?”

I am going to defend Ms Stanton here and defend her entirely.

Much of the foundational principles used to today for understanding the tests of scientific fact were layed down by people with deep religious, even fundamentalists convictions. Having a profound beliefs in scripture does not in any manner demean scientific or negate that one understands and advocates for scientific fact. I think it doesn’t matter a tiddle whether she is a pagan of a fundamentalists.

Its one thing to note the factual errors and explain why they are such. But merely contending that they are there without stating what and why, is a bit shrift.

Ohhh good grief, how old the earth is and climate change have absolutely no bearing on the issue as she advances it. The men credited for the double Helix structure of DNA, actually believed that skin color was a factor in intelligence. We don’t suddenly disqualify their research on DNA because they utterly boggled human intelligence. Though I suspect that they borrowed without granting credit. We give them credit despite the fact that it most likely that the DNA structure was unleashed in the instrumental research and critique of Dr. Rosalind Russel.

Expert opinion is important in research. But the veracity lies not in the expert but in the soundness of what is presented. And in this Ms Stanton’s advance is fairly clear, straight forward and sound.

The apparent attempts to make arguments she is not addressing and then foisting that on here blurs the matter at hand. Human life starts at conception and develops from that point, regardless what one calls the stages of that development.

The arguments about contraception, have no bearing on that issue, as they are for the purpose of preventing a human being from occurring. The contention that a miscarriage is in play in this is just nonsense. It is not logical at all that miscarriages are murders. It would only if, said miscarriage was instigated by the woman.

Frankly, the faith and practice beliefs are not at issue here. The morality is cleanly one that must be addressed in the secular. The protection of children in or out of the womb. Based on many of the contends noted, in order to make a moral assessment of whether or not to commit murder, ones needs “religion.”

Before Roe VS Wade there were agnostics and atheists who opposed killing children in the womb and they still exist.




I am keenly aware that Ms Stanton doesn’t need my help or support. But this is one instance in which, the content is fairly o target in my view.

“Life begins when the youngest child moves out and you move to a condo.”

Laughing and . . .

#19 Comment By russ On June 5, 2017 @ 2:48 pm


The fact that an inchoate single cell, lacking in any scintilla of will or consciousness, any ability to act upon its environment, has a unique DNA signature, does not make it a person. By the same token, the fact that a fully formed baby that might have been delivered yesterday, but isn’t actually going to be pushed out until tomorrow, is still within the womb, does not make it a mere mass of cells.

Where did the author equate a human being with a human person? It seemed that he or she was actually trying to answer just one of a few relevant questions (is an embryo a human being, or human life, if you’d rather call it that), and leaving the other question (is an embryo a human person) to philosophers. The third question (is it okay to end a human life, which might be influenced by the answer to the others) would still need to be debated and answered.

I think breaking it down the way the author did is a good way to focus the debate, because otherwise we’re often arguing past one another (you might be arguing about personhood while I’m arguing about human life–you might think it’s okay to terminate early human life while I think it’s also okay to terminate a human person–for instance).

If I didn’t know you’re an honest debater from other parts of this site, I’d assume you were missing the point intentionally.

#20 Comment By Patrick J Flood On June 6, 2017 @ 7:07 pm

Brooke Stanton’s article is a welcome contribution to the dialogue on the fundamental question of human life. She is correct that the science of embryology affirms that a new human being comes into existence at the conclusion of every complete fertilization of egg and sperm. There exists no other scientific account of this event.

Embryology also documents the astonishingly rapid development of the new human organism — it is not any other known kind of organism — in the early hours and days after fertilization. Such development is an obvious sign that the new human organism is in fact alive; if it does not occur or stops, which happens in many cases, the organism dies. End of story as far as science is concerned. Otherwise the organism continues to develop and to manifest this development over time by producing the several organs and structures and systems of the human body.

Let’s pause here ponder this: you or I or anyone is either dead or alive. There is no in-between. We my use a phrase like “she/he is half-dead,” but this merely describes an illness or injury of a living human being, who will either recover or become truly dead. There is no half-death or half-life.

The other reflection is this: a living being is either a human or it is something else. Again there is no middle ground. The half-man or half-horse of mythology is just that, a myth, and today’s pursuit of Bigfoot and similar mythical figures has entertainment value but no scientific standing.

If we start with the scientific physical reality that an embryo is a living human being, we need to understand that this being has within him/herself something we call “dignity” or “worth,” a characteristic that distinguishes a human from all other living things. Dignity belongs to someone not because they are brilliant or talented, wealthy or powerful, but because they are equally members of the human species. It is just that simple.

Some people, including people of good will, don’t like the inevitable conclusion, namely that the dignity of every living human being calls for protection from violence. But it does. Think about the only alternative — a society in which the dignity of the powerful, the brilliant, and so forth are safeguarded in law but everyone else can be disposed of. We have seen societies like that; we shouldn’t become one.

I avoid Brooke Stanton’s discussion of personhood because it seems to me to inject an unnecessary complexity that ultimately relies for resolution on a definition of “person,” which normally means “an individual human being” but has also been burdened at times with qualifications like “maturity,” “consciousness,” “decision-making capacity,” “responsibility,” and the like. This becomes a distraction from the main issue.

I conclude from the foregoing that the law should protect all human beings from violence except to save the life of another. Along with this, there is a question, not fully resolved to my satisfaction, regarding the the first week or thereabout of the embryo, when twinning sometimes occurs, after which two (or more) living human beings exist. After implantation, I understand that there can be no further division. So, what status does the embryo deserve in terms of legal protection before implantation? On that point, my mind is open to science and to reasonable conclusion.

Patrick J. Flood, Ph.D

#21 Comment By Conrad Pogorzelski On June 7, 2017 @ 10:58 am

Three weeks in the womb or there about, begins a beating heart in humans. There is no question in my mind that a beating heart is life. Should that not be the template of all human and animal life?

#22 Comment By GENE On June 7, 2017 @ 11:23 am


#23 Comment By RICHARD DAVID HAYES On June 7, 2017 @ 6:31 pm


Equality; Inherent Rights.

“All people are equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. As applied to the right to life, the terms ‘people’ and ‘person’ shall apply to every human being at any stage of development.”


Will you be a witness for GOD and HIS Creations?

There is NO ISSUE of more importance to stand for.

Now is the time for all good people, churches, public servants, organizations, groups to
“DO” (Psalm 11:3) something.

Support The Louisiana Life for All legislation NOW!!!




The fundamental civil rights issue of our time.

Personhood is the fundamental civil rights issue of our time. But what is personhood? What does it mean to be a person? Put simply, a “person” is a human being who is fully protected under the law; and we use the legal term “personhood” to describe this condition. Once a human being is declared a person that individual is guaranteed certain legal rights, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given and constitutionally protected rights. Sadly, not everyone is granted legal personhood.
The American Holocaust

When considering the genocidal slaughter of over 11 million Christians, Jews, disabled people and other “enemies of Hitler’s Nazi State,” how can we not see and recognize the parallels between the vast holocaust carried out in Nazi Germany just decades ago and the modern-day American holocaust ongoing within our own shores.

Whereas the Nazis were responsible for the wholesale murder of more than 11 million innocent, those today who support the practice of abortion homicide are no less complicit in the systematic slaughter of 55 million and counting equally precious human beings post Roe v. Wade. The parallels are undeniable and the science unequivocal. Murder is murder whatever stage of development the human victim.
The stark similarities between the two holocausts were lost on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, famous German Martyr, “Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life,” wrote Bonhoeffer in “Ethics,” his very last book before his execution by the Nazis.

“To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder,” he concluded.

Indeed, Psalm 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

So it occurs to me that those who call themselves “pro-life” and put faith to action in defense of innocent persons ? as did Dietrich Bonhoeffer ? honor both the memory of this Christian martyr and the God he served. They have picked up his mantle. They are continuing his noble work.
By contrast, if pro-lifers are modern-day Dietrich Bonhoeffers, then what does that make abortion supporters? In the years leading up to and during World War II, many Germans ? who were otherwise generally good people ? succumbed to Nazi propaganda and acquiesced to the horrific Jewish persecution that escalated from a slow boil to a red-hot torrent around them. In effect, they bought into exactly the same kind of dehumanizing, euphemistic semantical garbage embraced by those who today call themselves “pro-choice.”

Mind-boggling is the human capacity to rationalize genocide.

Barack Obama, the most radically pro-abortion president in U.S. history and the democrat party are equal to if not worst than the evil Nazi regime when considering the horrendous number (55 million and still counting) murdered by this ilk compared to the Nazis.

People are capable of the horrible things. … Apart from God some cannot see that they (the unborn) are persons as well.

Nonetheless, we as Christians are commanded to speak truth. We are told to hate that which is evil and to fight ? indeed to die if necessary ? for that which is good.

Demonizing abortion supporters by equating abortion genocide to the Nazi Holocaust is offending to many, but needed and is simply focusing on the facts and our mission to DO what is right as Psalm 11:3 admonishes every Christian.

This comparison is not intended to be an ad hominem attack. In fact, it’s not an attack at all. It simply is what it is. To identify the undeniable juxtaposition between the Nazi and abortion holocausts respectively is to make use of the best analogy available. I can think of no more fitting a comparison. If the shoe fits and all that.

Indeed, ours is a holocaust no less real ? no less evil than that perpetrated by the Nazi regime. We’ve simply moved from the gas chambers to the abortion clinic ? from Auschwitz to Planned Parenthood.

I love America. She’s the greatest nation on earth. Nonetheless, as long as we continue to allow this enduring slaughter of the most innocent among us, we are no better than was Nazi Germany. Abortion on demand will be viewed by our progeny as the single greatest blight on our American heritage.

To live under Roe v. Wade is to live in shame. To live under pro-abortion leadership is to live under an evil reich.
As Bonhoeffer said-“Not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act”. We must “SPEAK UP”. If not now when, if not us who?


Our cause (Psalm 11:3) is just, duty (Ezekial 33) is ours, results (II Chronicles 7:14) are GOD’S,
Richard David Hayes

#24 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 11, 2017 @ 8:28 pm

“I love America. She’s the greatest nation on earth. Nonetheless, as long as we continue to allow this enduring slaughter of the most innocent among us, we are no better than was Nazi Germany.”

No argument from me.

#25 Comment By b.gupta On September 9, 2017 @ 1:40 pm

do , any one knows the from where life came to every live life and even to very first person of the univers and how the energy has the power .
do the very first person or life is alive or killed by the the some Capable and power full , egoist persons,.