{"id":330007,"date":"2025-04-27T13:40:13","date_gmt":"2025-04-27T18:40:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=330007"},"modified":"2025-04-26T08:11:59","modified_gmt":"2025-04-26T13:11:59","slug":"property-person-dystopian-eugenic-baby-making","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/property-person-dystopian-eugenic-baby-making\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Property or person’? The dystopian, eugenic future of baby making"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In a series for The New York Times, author Anna Louie Sussman examined the dilemma over the treatment of human embryos. She concluded that the ethical debate over the humanity and rights of embryos shows little chance of resolution in the fallout of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em> (which overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em>) and LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C.<\/em> (in which the Alabama Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos can be considered children under the state’s Wrongful Death Act).<\/p>\n

But as the argument rages, millions of human embryos are being destroyed as part of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process. And as society marches down the path of embryo screening and experimentation with little oversight, it is going to become increasingly difficult to rein in the billion dollar fertility industry, which is moving swiftly toward a eugenic expectation of reproduction.<\/p>\n

“What do we owe this cluster of cells?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sussman first<\/a> asks, ‘what do we owe human embryos?’<\/p>\n

The consistent answer would be, “We owe them everything we owe to any other innocent child<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

No matter how many times the arguments in favor of IVF, embryonic screening, and embryonic experimentation are twisted to justify their use, there is always the truth: a new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. The only way to believe creating and experimenting on human embryos is ethical is to dehumanize<\/em> human embryos by denying the scientific fact that they are<\/em> living human beings. To claim otherwise is discriminatory and leads to eugenic practices.<\/p>\n

Sussman shared her personal experience with IVF, during which she created seven embryos, of whom only one<\/em> was deemed “most likely to develop into a child” \u2014 though, of course, all seven embryos were already<\/em> children, the biological offspring of their parents<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Once the single embryo was transferred to her uterus, Sussman experienced bleeding “and feared that it \u2014 whatever it was at that stage \u2014 was gone… But it decided to stay….”<\/p>\n

This statement highlights that even those who won’t admit human embryos are human beings allow them fleeting moments of humanity. Even while dehumanizing her daughter as an “it,” Sussman spoke as if her child had\u00a0ability<\/em> to decide<\/em> “to stay.” Her daughter was always a ‘she,’ not an ‘it’ \u2014 the same person throughout different stages of development, just as she continues to develop now.<\/p>\n

Human experimentation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Embryos deemed “leftover” from IVF are sometimes donated to researchers once their parents have given birth to their desired number of children.<\/p>\n

The rules surrounding these experiments vary by state. For the most part, 14 days<\/a> is the furthest along in the embryonic stage of life that experimentation is allowed. Whether or not to extend research beyond 14 days is a question that, if answered with a resounding ‘yes,’ would lead to a further push to continuously extend that timeframe.<\/p>\n

“Almost instantly, you have a kind of discourse of the need to revise the limit,\u201d said bioethicist Ben Hurlbut. \u201cWhy? In what other domain of life would we say, when it becomes possible to violate a rule, that the rule has to give way to the violation? The 14-day rule has always been slightly arbitrary; a 21- or 28-day rule would be even more so. What, then, would be stopping us from going even further?” New York doesn’t have a cutoff age.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sussman wrote of a “breakthrough” by Dr. Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, who learned that “even with no mom in sight, a human embryo is capable of ambling down its developmental path on autopilot, well past the point when it would have normally implanted in the uterus.”<\/p>\n

This is a striking admission \u2014 it means that the human embryo, when not interrupted, is propelling its own development and is not simply a part of the mother’s body<\/em>.<\/strong> It is distinct. A human embryo will grow and change as only a living thing can.<\/p>\n

She explained that in order to extend the timeframe for experimentation on human embryos, a new legal definition for “embryo” has been proposed \u2014 one that would undoubtedly further dehumanize embryos by promoting the false idea that they are only “potential” human beings with the “potential to become a fetus.”<\/p>\n

Logically, then, Sussman’s toddler would merely be considered a “potential” adult.<\/p>\n

Changing the definition of “embryo” would also serve to usher in the next phase of IVF \u2014\u00a0which is already a practice of the elite.<\/p>\n

Embryo screening and ‘optimization’<\/strong><\/p>\n

Part two<\/a> of Sussman’s series actually humanizes embryos for a brief moment as she asks, “Should human life be optimized?”<\/p>\n

\u00a0