Researchers Continue to Kill Human Embryos in the Name of Science

We have written before about how scientists have tried to use the controversial gene-editing technology CRISPR to alter the human genome.

In some cases, researchers have attempted to create human-animal hybrids using this type of technology.

This week our friends at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview have highlighted yet another example of scientists using CRISPR to meddle with — and then kill — human embryos in the name of science.

John Stonestreet writes,

[A] team of researchers at the Francis Crick Institute in London used CRISPR to edit 18 donated human embryos. The purpose, they claimed, was to study “the role of a particular gene in the earliest stages of human development.” Unfortunately, around half of the embryos “contained major unintended edits.”

“Major unintended edits” is a euphemism for “mutation” and “genetic damage” which, as Medium told its readers, “could lead to birth defects or medical problems like cancer later in life.” As one genetics researcher put it, “…you’re affecting so much of the DNA around the gene you’re trying to edit that you could be inadvertently affecting other genes and causing problems.” Even worse, the Crick Institute team didn’t inadvertently mess with a gene near the one they were targeting. In other words, they “hit their targets.” The results were, however, unexpected.

Fyodor Urnov, a professor of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, was more blunt: “There’s no sugarcoating this . . . This is a restraining order for all genome editors to stay the living daylights away from embryo editing.”

Once a “gene-editing expert” gets frightened, you’d think we might want to cool our jets in this whole “playing god” thing. I doubt it. . . . By the way, all the embryos affected by the Francis Crick Institute team were destroyed.

This kind of “create-and-kill” research is simply unconscionable.

It treats unborn children like lab material.

The unborn children created and killed as part of these gene-editing experiments had zero say in what happened to them. They were simply at the mercy of researchers in a lab.

As we have said many times, human beings are not research material. Unfortunately, gene-editing technologies like CRISPR treat them that way.

We must insist that scientific research respect the sanctity of human life at every stage of development.

Challenging the “New Normal” on Commercial Surrogacy

Last week we published a blog post about New York’s recent decision to legalize commercial surrogacy.

On Friday, John Stonestreet at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview released a column about CNN host Anderson Cooper’s decision to hire a commercial surrogate.

Stonestreet writes,

This story demonstrates that commercial surrogacy, including cases in which the child is intentionally deprived of its mother, is now fully normal. . . .

Behind Anderson Cooper’s money and these headlines is this baby’s mom. No matter what we tell ourselves about how willing she was or how better off she is now, she is harmed and so is her son – who somehow knew from the moment he was born to look for her. Unfortunately, he won’t find her. Shame on us.

Stonestreet points out several of the ethical problems with commercial surrogacy, such as:

  • Commercial surrogacy assumes “children” are a right that God never promised
  • It denies children the opportunity to be raised by their biological mom and a dad
  • It treats children as products
  • It poses a significant risk of financial exploitation for women

As we keep saying, being pro-life means believing that human life is sacred from conception until natural death.

It means treating human life with respect at every stage of development.

It also means recognizing that human beings are not products that can be bought or sold. That’s why Family Council opposes commercial surrogacy — and will continue to oppose it.

Read John Stonestreet’s entire commentary here.

Another State Legalizes Commercial Surrogacy

Last Month New York lawmakers reportedly legalized the controversial practice of commercial surrogacy.

The legislation was tacked onto a budget measure that passed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Commercial surrogacy is a practice where companies and wealthy couples pay women thousands of dollars to carry children.

There are several ethical problems with commercial surrogacy and egg harvesting. Here are a few:

  • Selling Children. Commercial surrogacy treats babies like products and ultimately amounts to buying and selling children for profit.
  • Unethical Treatment of Women. Commercial surrogacy and egg harvesting programs treat women like commodities.
  • Exploitation of Women and Children. Commercial surrogacy makes it possible to exploit women and children, which is one reason why the practice is banned in many countries and why the European Union has condemned it as a human rights violation.

Commercial surrogacy and egg harvesting also carry a number of health risks for women.

Unfortunately, Arkansas law currently allows commercial surrogacy and commercial egg harvesting.

That’s why Family Council has supported legislation in the past that would have addressed these issues.

H.B. 1761 of 2019 would have regulated the buying and selling of human eggs. It would have prohibited companies from paying women for their eggs, but it contained exceptions for free egg donations and for fertility treatments.

The bill passed in the Arkansas House, but unfortunately failed to make it through the senate before the session adjourned.

In 2017 then-Rep. Greg Leding sponsored a bill prohibiting commercial surrogacy in Arkansas; unfortunately the bill never came up for a vote before the legislature adjourned.

Being pro-life means believing that human life is sacred from conception until natural death.

It means treating human life with respect at every stage of development.

It also means recognizing that human beings are not products that can be bought or sold.

In this way, commercial surrogacy violates the sanctity and dignity of human life.