What do humans owe “cluster[s] of cells”—the tiny babies we create in laboratories around the world? That’s the question being asked in a series of articles from The New York Times by a journalist (a mother of one baby conceived via IVF and six babies still frozen) grappling with what rights, if any, embryos (human beings made in the image of God!) should have—not just when it comes to the abortion issue but in light of the growing fertility industry as well (an industry that ends untold millions of lives each year).
These articles are sickening and hard to read as they highlight a worldview that views embryos as nothing more than a “cluster of cells” that can be manipulated and discarded at the will of parents, doctors, and embryologists. Even as she asks the questions, it’s obvious from her choice of wording where she lands: embryos are not really persons.
“Cluster of Cells”
Consider the beginning of the introduction to the article series. It features a video of an embryo in a petri dish and says, “This is the embryo that became my daughter.” Notice the language: became my daughter. No, that child did not become the author’s daughter: she was her daughter (and 100% human) from the very moment of fertilization.
The tagline then says, “This report is part [of] a series about the cluster of cells at the crossroads of science, ethics and the law.” What horribly dehumanizing language in that phrase: “the cluster of cells.” That “cluster of cells” is a unique person with a combination of DNA that has never been seen before and that will never be seen again—DNA that codes for sex, hair and eye color, skin shade, and so much more. Everything that makes a person a person is there right from the moment of fertilization. That embryo is much more than a “cluster of cells.” That embryo is a person made in the image of God, being fearfully and wonderfully knit together by him (Psalm 139). That embryo is a living baby.
The author writes, “I’m now the parent of a toddler I love more than I could have imagined and in possession of six remaining embryos, frozen and waiting for my decision on their fate. Like many people who have gone through I.V.F., I have a complicated relationship with them and vacillate between wanting the finality of deciding and holding on to the possibility that they might one day, under circumstances yet unknown, come to life.”
In other words, she knows she holds the power of life and death over six unborn children. She only has a “complicated relationship with them” because she refuses to recognize their humanity. If she viewed them like she views her toddler—as her children, precious and valuable—she would not vacillate between destroying them or allowing them to continue their lives.
Deadly Research
The article features interviews with a variety of scientists involved with experiments on embryos, some of whom struggle with the ethics of their work, others who see the destruction of life as a nonissue. One scientist was involved with the first embryos grown to 14 days, the current guideline for how long a baby can be grown in a lab, and the author describes the end of the “experiment” this way: “As the clock ticked toward Day 14, the Cambridge team had to end its experiments in order to stay compliant with the law. The team removed the remaining embryos from the culture dish and fixed them in slides in order to create images of them and further examine them. Eventually, the samples deteriorated and were disposed of as medical waste.”
These embryos, unique people made in God’s image, are just referred to as “samples” that deserved nothing more than being photographed and then tossed as “medical waste.” What a culture of death we live in!
Of course, scientists who believe in this kind of research and are pushing to be allowed to grow embryos past 14 days believe they are helping humanity by doing so. One researcher was quoted as saying, “In my conscience, I know there are great benefits in pushing past 14 days. . . It may literally save lives in the next generation.” In other words, it’s okay to destroy untold numbers of children because we’re learning about embryonic development and that might save lives (e.g., help prevent miscarriage). But the ends do not justify the means.
Killing vast numbers of embryos for scientific experiments so that we may later save babies (a good end) is not justifiable. Potentially saving future babies does not justify the present killing of babies! We are not to murder (Exodus 20:13), and good ends or intentions don’t justify disregarding God’s command. And deliberately killing a human embryo is murder! It’s child sacrifice.
“Sex Is for Fun, and Embryo Screening Is for Babies”
Another article in the series has also been released, this one titled “Opinion: Should Human Life Be Optimized?” This article by the same author begins with the story of a woman, Noor Siddiqui, who founded Orchid, a genetic screening company. Her mother went blind in her 30s due to a spontaneous mutation in her DNA, which prompted Siddiqui to eventually “found Orchid, a way of helping parents anticipate just such genetic misfortunes.” In other words, she screens embryos to ensure that children like her mother are never born. Rather, those embryos are destroyed, and healthier, “better” embryos are implanted instead.
Here’s what her company does: “Orchid screens embryos’ DNA for hundreds of conditions, such as retinitis pigmentosa [her mother’s condition], which can be traced to a single genetic variant. But the company also goes further, offering what is known as polygenic screening, which gives parents what is essentially a risk profile on each embryo’s propensity for conditions such as heart disease, for which the genetic component is far more complex.”
Let that sink in: If your child shows a risk for heart disease in the future, you can just destroy that child and implant a different baby. This is shocking, sickening eugenics! It’s a desire for the “perfect” baby and leaves the “unfit” dead in a lab.
And investors like Siddiqui don’t just want this merely for infertile couples undergoing IVF. In a video describing the process of comparing embryos to choose the “best” one, she said, “Sex is for fun, and embryo screening is for babies. . . It’s going to become insane not to screen for these things.” No, as Allie Beth Stuckey (one of the speakers at our upcoming Answers Homeschool Experience) said on her podcast, “Genetic testing is for eugenicists, [and] eugenics is for Nazis.” There is nothing new under the sun.
That video features Siddiqui calmly and smilingly sitting at her computer, comparing the deep dive into the genetics of “Embryo 2” and “Embryo 3” and stating, “Fortunately we just avoided risk for hundreds of diseases.” But, of course, she didn’t avoid the risk of any disease in the sense of providing preventive medical care to theoretically ensure that child will live a healthy life. Rather, the baby who maybe would eventually have developed that disease is discarded in such a system.
She goes on to claim that this research is “completely life-changing.” Yes, it’s life-changing—it’s life-ending for the unfortunate babies deemed “unfit.” It’s basically a death cult.
Both of the articles I highlighted were very long and filled with ethical questions and “answers” from researchers desperately trying to justify their destruction of human life. But ultimately, it’s only the biblical worldview that can give final and settled answers to these ethical questions.
And it’s simple: We aren’t God. We don’t have authority to decide who lives and who dies. We don’t get to create life only to destroy it. Every life—no matter the age, level of development, location, level of ability, or future health risk—is made in God’s image and therefore has sanctity and value.
Life begins at fertilization and deserves to be protected.
