John Stonestreet – Family Council

Beyond Crispr: Recreating Man with Genetic Editing

Jul 29, 2026John StonestreetBioethicsBioethics, Life, Pro-life, Sanctity of Human Life

The “man-moulders of the new age” vs. Imago Dei.

Recently, the New York Times reported that scientists at Columbia University have used a new technology called “base editing” to alter the DNA of early human embryos with unprecedented accuracy.

As the Times noted,

On the one hand, the technology might one day enable parents to safely repair disease-causing mutations in embryos. But it might also be used to select desired traits—a practice that some ethicists have argued is nothing short of eugenics.

These recent approaches differ from earlier gene-editing methods like CRISPR, which remove defective genes rather than improve them. So, what the Times has reported is not just a difference in degree, but in kind, though with the same moral questions still unanswered. As Andrew Walker said at WORLD, “We should recognize that this technology occupies a morally gray zone . . . Therapeutic intervention differs from genetic enhancement . . . Base editing enables both.”

Neither base editing nor CRISPR will be the last foray into this kind of eugenics. In fact, some of us predicted that the imprisonment by the CCP of a Chinese scientist who used CRISPR to modify human embryos was more of a distraction than a punishment. If so, it worked. The public has moved on. The outrage at Dr. He has died down. His work continues, even as Columbia researchers add a degree of academic respectability to the efforts to edit human beings.

And it always goes like this. As one of the geneticists from Columbia put it, we need a public “discussion” about gene editing. Do we? Before or after we do it? No, these scientists behave as if the moral questions are settled, or at least a matter of personal interest, and all that’s left is to discuss how best to use this technology.

Both history and the Bible warn what happens when our technologies outrun our ethics. Many have now forgotten the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell (1927). Caught up in the euphoria of the Progressive Era’s zeal for scientific improvement, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke for an 8-1 majority and upheld a compulsory sterilization law of the mentally disabled. The aim of the law was, as the Court said, to “prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” According to Holmes, in the case of Carrie Buck being sterilized, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Lawyers representing the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials after World War II cited Holmes’ opinion in Buck v. Bell to justify their own eugenics efforts in the Nazi regime.

New developments in gene editing are still plagued by essential questions regarding human nature. First, is human nature permanently flawed or are we constantly progressing toward perfection? And, second what will stop us from using this technology not just to repair, but to pursue perfection, or—dare I say—a master race?

These aren’t far-fetched questions. One scientist quoted by the Times raised exactly that concern when he said, “In regular I.V.F., embryos are screened for genetic abnormalities,” but base line editing “is providing the ‘baby improvers’ with a how-to manual for forays beyond the ethical pale.”

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis foresaw these dangers:

Man’s conquest of Nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men…But the man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the power of an omnicompetent state and irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.

Yet, what governs these “conditioners”? A “public discussion?” No. Without moral standards, we are left to the impulses of those in charge.

Recently, Christian ethicist Scott Rae argued that those things resulting from the Fall are within the domain of medical treatment (such as disease), while those not resulting from the Fall are the “givens” of life and not in the realm of enhancement (such as your biological sex, eye color, etc.). This distinction is helpful, despite the real challenge of drawing such an ethical line in a Fallen world, much less expecting others to comply.

Scripture is plain. Every person is made in God’s image and is endowed with eternal dignity, worth, and beauty. Any potential value to be found in this new base-editing technology will be outweighed by the consequences of not recognizing what is true of the human condition, both our value and our potential for evil. In this case as well, the potential consequences far outweigh the potential benefits.

America Flirts with Democratic Socialism

Jul 16, 2026John StonestreetCurrent EventsCommunism, Socialism

Recently, in primary elections in both New York and Colorado, self-professed Communist and Democratic Socialist candidates beat even progressive-wing candidates to claim Democratic nominations for office. The political wave is moving through the States. Today on Breakpoint, Eric Patterson, president of the Victims of Communism Museum and Memorial Foundation, discusses how a Marxist worldview operates and why it matters that one of America’s political parties is being pushed in this direction. Here’s Dr. Patterson:

Today’s so-called Democratic Socialists like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have recognized some real problems in the bureaucracy: things like inefficiency, red tape, lack of accountability, and other problems in urban environments such as in Baltimore, New York, and Chicago. But they fail to recognize that it was their own progressive party’s imposition of bigger and bigger government, restrictions on private property and innovation, and efforts to create a class of citizens dependent on government that has caused the problems of bad government and high prices.

Should Americans be worried, or is this all just youthful enthusiasm? True, there is a faddish “pop Marxism” among many young adults and teens. It is cool to “rage against the machine” and even cooler to have government subsidize your college degree, housing, groceries, and transportation.

But there is something much more sinister going on. Americans should always ask three questions when considering any political candidate, platform, or party: Do we want statism or individual liberty with limited government? Do we want to buttress American institutions or attack them? And can we justify or denounce political violence?

Considering the first question, are the policies that Democratic Socialists advocate for designed to protect religious freedom, freedom of conscience, private property, the family, and private enterprise? Or do they rely on increasing state power to regulate social, economic, and political life? Remember, Marx said that control of the economy (Socialism) was the first step toward control of everything (Communism). It’s noteworthy that Democratic Socialists attack private property, an innovative business environment, and often call freedoms of religion and conscience smokescreens for superstition and intolerance of their progressive agenda.

Second, do Democratic Socialists defend our American constitutional order and its institutions, or do they attack them? Look out for those who call into question our Constitution, who advocate Supreme Court packing, and those who call outdated or illegitimate our modes of government (federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, democratic processes).

Third, do they justify violence or advocate violence? Radical socialism is always an “ends justify the means” worldview. Look at the environment we are in with multiple assassination attempts against a sitting president, violence and threats targeting Supreme Court justices, and all the destructiveness, from Occupy Wall Street to Seattle’s “Capital Hill Autonomous Zone”to anti-Semitism on American college campuses. So often, Democratic Socialists like Mamdani, NY’s Andrea Ocasio-Cortez, Colorado’s Melat Kiros, and Seattle’s mayor have justified such extremism.

The official Democratic Socialists of America website suggests major taxation and redistribution of wealth by unaccountable government bureaucrats to fund “universal public systems for healthcare, college, and housing.” It undermines America’s constitutional order by calling for dramatic changes to the Supreme Court and Congress and the elimination of the Electoral College.

Perhaps even more stunning? DSA calls for full voting rights for non-citizens, punitive taxation on “the richest earners,” and statehood for the city of Washington, DC.

What most of the candidates who call themselves Democratic Socialists also have in common is a fealty not to ecological conservation, but to the philosophically radical, budget-busting, so-called Green New Deal. Moreover, since the grotesque attacks of October 7, many have squarely sided with Hamas’ murderers rather than the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. This latter movement has produced the return of an ugly anti-Semitism to American public life from the hard Left.

This year, we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, best expressed in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. As Martin Luther King, Jr. noted, the Declaration was not fully realized in 1776 but was a promissory note to future generations that we must all be working to fulfill. The great American story is one of scars and triumphs in the general motion toward greater individual liberty and the full recognition of our common human dignity.

The Founders knew that unrestrained government power was the first enemy of freedom. The British government kept changing the social contract by waving trial by jury, quartering troops in private homes, appropriating private land and businesses, revoking the colonial charters, etc. Then, after a decade of taking more and more rights away from the colonists, the British killed citizens at Lexington and Concord, marking the start of the American Revolutionary War.

So, the Founders were determined to buttress individual rights, our federal system, private property, and other fundamental liberties. Today, we too must be on the lookout for those who advocate for a massive, unaccountable state, undermine our fundamental rights and institutions, and are willing to justify violence.

That was Eric Patterson, president of the Victims of Communism Museum and Memorial Foundation, Learn more about their work at vocmuseum.org.

What Americans Really Believe about What’s Best for Children: Guest Column

Jun 30, 2026John StonestreetMarriageChild Welfare, Family, Marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges

As a recent Substack post from children’s rights advocacy group Them Before Us accurately summarized, the decision issued eleven years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges “did more than mandate marriage licenses for same-sex couples.”

It redefined marriage in law, and redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Once husbands and wives became optional in marriage, mothers and fathers became optional in parenthood, eroding the right every child has to their own mother and father.

Thus, the Obergefell decision marked a further stage in the evolution of one of the core ideas of the sexual revolution: that men and women are interchangeable, not only in rights but also in social roles and even in reality itself. A legal decision of this magnitude inevitably shapes the cultural imagination, defining down the essential differences between men and women, husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers as mere cultural constructs. And ever since, we’ve been served the narrative that the social innovation of same-sex “marriage” is settled, both in culture and in law.

But what if it isn’t?

A new poll conducted by The Decision Co., of 1200 conservative and moderate likely voters, found that a significant majority believe, “children matter, mothers matter, fathers matter, and children’s needs should come before adult desires.” According to the data, the narrative that even social and political conservatives want same-sex “marriage” and consider it “settled law” is unsubstantiated conjecture.

As Josh Hammer, Senior Editor-at-Large at Newsweek and host of The Josh Hammer Show, said:

“This poll exposes the growing disconnect between elite cultural narratives and the convictions of conservative and moderate voters. Despite years of messaging from the media, academia, and corporate America, these voters continue to affirm a fundamental belief: whenever possible, children should be raised by and connected to both their mother and father. At a time when the center-right is often portrayed as fractured, this survey reveals remarkable unity around a principle that should never have become controversial: the rights and needs of children deserve to come before adult desires.”

Among the findings from this survey,

96% of these voters say it is important for a child to be raised with both an involved mother and an involved father.
82% of those surveyed agree that no child should be deliberately denied a mother or a father.
78% agree that when a child’s needs conflict with an adult’s desires, the child’s needs should come first.
66% reject the claim that being raised by same-sex parents is no different for a child than being raised by an adoptive mother and father.
63% of those surveyed agree that children are harmed when they lose their mother or father to be raised in a same-sex household.

For the record, the best social science data supports the views that these voters have. While direct comparison studies between children raised by married mothers and fathers and those acquired by same-sex couples are often plagued by poor methodology, self-selective sample groups, and ideological bias, two social science findings are overwhelmingly clear. First, children raised in homes by biological, married mothers and fathers have a distinct advantage. And second, mothers and fathers parent differently, and those differences matter greatly.

Interestingly, church attendance is a major differentiator for what people believe about marriage, children, and parenting. “Among voters who attend church regularly, 72% agree that every child should be legally recognized as having a mother and father, but so do 43% of those who never attend church at all.” On one hand, the gap is sizeable. On the other hand, a significant portion of the population currently holds a counter-cultural view about children.

Of course, a lesson to be learned from over 50 years of pro-life activism, is that people do not always connect their beliefs with the implications of those beliefs. Often, consistency is disrupted by a population taught that moral beliefs must be kept personal and private and should be outweighed by a commitment to “tolerance” and “accepting everyone.” Here too, the heaviest work to be done by those of us hoping to protect children is worldview work.

But there’s another lesson to be learned from those who have fought so hard for so long to make abortion not merely illegal but also unthinkable. The Supreme Court cannot settle an issue that is so far upstream of its jurisdiction. Obergefell is not the first or only time the Court has gotten an important decision wrong.

Like in the past, the moral failure of Obergefell is an expression of bad anthropology. And, like the past, this is no theoretical mess we are in. For children everywhere, it’s personal. We owe it to them to tell the truth, oppose the lies, and convince as many people as we can.

Learn more about the study and how you can join the Greater Than Campaign at greaterthancampaign.com.