• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

IVF

Oct 02 2025

Creating Babies Without Mothers Must Remain Frankensteinian Fiction

Scientists are calling it a pioneering DNA breakthrough – a Frankensteinian development where material from skin cells are transformed into human eggs capable of being fertilized and turned into human embryos.

What this means is scientists creating a baby without the need of a mother.

Sadly, it’s not merely theoretical. It’s already taken place at a laboratory inside the Oregon Health and Science University.

“It is very preliminary work at this stage,” explained Dr. Paul Amato, a reproductive endocrinologist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school.

However early in the process, the frightening turn is yet one more evil and wicked manifestation of what happens when you try and detach God’s perfect institution of one-man, one-woman marriage from procreation.

Scientists are trying to put a positive spin on the news, especially appealing to the sympathies of those struggling to conceive a child.

“If it were to be successful, it would offer hope for couples and people suffering from infertility, particularly older women who have run out of eggs,” observed Dr. Amato.

“In theory, the technique could result in a limitless number of eggs,” she stated. “The skin cell DNA however can come from anyone, even if they personally don’t have any eggs or remaining eggs – older women, women after cancer treatment, people born without eggs, men.”

And there you have it – the true motivation and energy behind the emerging technology.

Dr. Amato claims, “A same-sex male couple could potentially have a child genetically related to both partners.”

If the prospect of enslaving a child to growing up in life without a biological mother doesn’t sadden or burden you, then you’re obviously not paying attention to facts.

In addition to the countless frightening aspects of lab engineered human beings, the absence of a mother in a young person’s life are significant and consequential. The social science shows growing up without a mother leads to a greater risk of emotional problems, increased risk of drug abuse, compromised emotional self-regulation, lower self-esteem and lower educational attainment.

Mothers are more than egg donors – they’re everything in the life of a child.

The unparalleled selfishness driving this craze is what’s behind Katy Faust’s organization, Them Before Us. The non-profit “strives to put children before adults in every conversation about marriage and family.”

In other words, it’s not about what the “parent” wants but rather what’s in the best interest of the child.

On a recent podcast, Katy wisely noted, “The baby-making industry and the baby-taking industry are two sides of the same child-commodifying coin.”

The lab process in question is called “mitomeiosis” and is a version of cloning. The team in Oregon produced 82 functional eggs, seven of which were developed into embryos. All of them had chromosomal abnormalities.

Sadly, scientists are now back in the lab and trying to modify and make adjustments in an effort to create healthy babies without the need of biological mothers.

Even Mary Shelly, the famed novelist best known for writing Frankenstein, might well find this current narrative both horrifying, mortifying and moral sense-defying, especially for non-fiction.

Image from Getty.

Written by Paul Batura · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: IVF, Paul Random

May 22 2025

Oh, Baby: Pro-Life Senators Prioritize Women’s Health Over Ethically Concerning Cures

It might seem to the casual observer that modern medicine is increasingly prone to treating the symptom rather than the cause.

This is certainly the case when it comes to the heartbreaking issue of infertility, which is medically defined as the inability to conceive after twelve months of trying to have a baby.

The infertility treatment market in the United States is estimated to be nearly $8 billion in 2025, up from just under $6 billion this past year. A large portion of those dollars are spent on IVF or In vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment where sperm and eggs are combined in a lab to create an embryo.

While it’s possible to reduce the ethical concerns surrounding IVF, the industry has become increasingly problematic. Millions of human embryos are being created in labs and later destroyed or frozen for seemingly ever. Donor eggs and sperm are being used, surrogates are being contracted, couples are ordering up designer babies, and little to no concern is being paid to how children who do survive the fraught process will fare in the long-term.

You may ask: Why is IVF increasing and becoming so popular? There are many reasons, but almost all of them are rooted in a woman’s inability to conceive. Only IVF doesn’t really address or try to correct the biological issues at play leading to the infertility. Instead, it’s the equivalent of heart bypass surgery where doctors simply find another way to solve the problem. Or it’s akin to taking a pain reliever for a massive headache for weeks rather than addressing the cause of the affliction itself.

When it comes to trying to address the difficult issues of infertility, there are other ways to come at the challenge.

It’s this belief and conviction that’s behind Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith’s bill, “The Reproductive Empowerment and Support through Optimal Restoration (RESTORE) Act.” It was previously introduced in the 118th Congress.

“So many couples of today’s childbearing-aged generations face an uphill battle with fertility struggles that are complex and unique to every woman and man,” Senator Hyde-Smith stated. “The holistic fertility policy promoted through the RESTORE Act aims to treat the root causes of infertility, many of which stem from chronic conditions and environmental factors that are the focus of President Trump’s MAHA movement.”

She added:

“If we are going to truly support women and men who are ready to embrace parenthood, then we should promote substantive fertility solutions that ensure access to restorative reproductive medicine—fully healing couples and empowering them with autonomy over how they start and build their families.” 

Senator James Lankford, a cosponsor of the Act, agreed and offered both an empathetic and practical justification for the legislation. 

“Infertility is one of the most difficult challenges couples can face, and most Americans have either faced or know someone who is facing the difficult journey to have a baby,” said Senator Lankford. “IVF is an incredible scientific advancement that allows families to bring life into the world, but IVF is very expensive and shouldn’t be the only option available to families.  The RESTORE Act prioritizes addressing underlying causes of infertility to help families to bring the miracle of life into the world.”

The legislation puts a spotlight on some of the many health conditions that contribute to infertility, including endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, thyroid issues and hormone imbalances, to name just a few.

According to Senator Hyde-Smith’s office, key provisions of the RESTORE Act include: 

  • Developing educational tools for women seeking information about reproductive health conditions and restorative reproductive medicine.
  • Providing training opportunities for medical professionals to learn how to diagnose and treat reproductive health conditions.
  • Directing the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health to conduct data collection and implement ongoing reports to assess the access women and men have to restorative reproductive medicine and infertility care through proper testing, diagnosis, and treatment of reproductive conditions.
  • Promoting, through existing funding opportunities in Title X and the HHS Office of Population Affairs, medical training for medical students and professionals who feel called to truly help women and men struggling with reproductive health conditions and infertility.
  • Advancing lifestyle medicine prescriptions as a method for treating male infertility.
  • Directing HHS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and all relevant panels to update the diagnostic and procedural codes related to infertility that implement the practice of restorative reproductive medicine.

Senators Hyde-Smith and Lankford and other supporters of the bill are looking at the cause and not just a possible or seeming cure. We applaud, support, and pray for this much needed effort.

Image from Shutterstock.

Written by Paul Batura · Categorized: Life · Tagged: IVF, Lankford

Apr 21 2025

Human Life is Intrinsically Valuable — A Critique of ‘The Embryo Question’

Human life is intrinsically valuable.

This is my chief objection to “The Embryo Question,” The New York Times’ three–part series examining the ethical status of embryos.

In each piece, IVF patient and “reproductive journalist” Anna Louie Sussman compares different legal and moral conceptions of embryos — everything from a meaningless clump of cells to a unique person with inalienable rights.

The series does not come to any firm conclusions about embryos’ worth. In her final piece, Sussman muses on their “astonishing subjectivity”:

We all have the capacity to feel one way about embryos in one context or on one day and a different way in another situation.

I vehemently disagree. Embryos are not subjective — they are independent human persons with their own DNA. The Bible tells us God intentionally creates these tiny humans. He knows and loves them, regardless of their size, level of development or independence. Psalm 139: 13-16 famously reads,

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them (ESV).

Before I address the problems with Sussman’s series, I want to give credit where credit is due.

Sussman and the Times should be commended for not only exploring the morality of IVF and embryonic personhood. Media outlets, politicians and so-called experts frequently denounce these issues as religious propaganda. Some ignore it entirely to protect the pro-abortion argument that a baby is part of a woman’s body.  

Sussman deserves special praise for admitting she doesn’t know how to feel about embryos and acknowledging the connection she feels to the six frozen children remaining from her successful IVF treatment.

Journalists do not frequently exhibit this kind of vulnerability, and it’s a critical first step toward acknowledging that embryos are more than a mere clump of cells.

That being said, Sussman’s series contains three foundational errors that betray a common pro-abortion bias: that a mother’s desire for a baby determines her child’s value.

Abortion and Embryonic Personhood are Inextricably Linked

Though Sussman dared to explore the worth of embryos, she could not bring herself to examine the implications of embryonic personhood on abortion.

“Yet, to state the obvious, abortion and embryos are not the same thing,” she writes in her final piece, explaining,

Given the evolution of reproductive technologies and innovations in embryo research, it is now possible to consider questions of how we want to treat embryos, in some situations, separately from the rights of those who gestate them.

Here, Sussman suggests abortion could continue even if embryos were legally considered children, presumably because a mother’s desire to abort her child would outweigh the child’s rights.

Here, Sussman implies the value an embryo’s life is extrinsic, or dependent on external factors like convenience or a mother’s desire to have children. Only under this conception of human life would it be permissible to kill embryos — tiny, developing humans — “in some situations” and not others.

But both the Bible and the United States’ founding document affirm human life is intrinsically valuable, regardless of circumstance. The Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If all life is intrinsically valuable, and embryos are ethically entitled to personhood, then it is morally wrong to kill any embryo, in any situation.

Life is Valuable, Regardless of It’s Convenience

Speaking of intrinsic value, Sussman also implies that treating embryos as people would be too troublesome to consider.

Throughout “The Embryo Question,” Sussman repeatedly remarks on ways acknowledging an embryo’s personhood would disrupt our legal, social and medical systems.

“I read headlines about a Texas woman justifying driving in the H.O.V. lane because she was pregnant and a tax break in Georgia for unborn children,” she wrote in one piece. In another, she enumerated the consequences of the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court ruling establishing embryos as “extrauterine children.”

This new legal status instantly jeopardized in vitro fertilization practice across Alabama, sending clinics and patients scrambling amid confusion over what kind of liability clinics bore for the embryos — now legally children — in their care.

Treating embryos as people may upend social systems, but inconvenience is not a viable reason to deny embryos personhood. The value of human life — legally, religiously and otherwise — is intrinsic.

“Come to Life”

Sussman portrays embryos as the in-between stage between a clump of human cells and life — not fully part of the mother and not fully their own person.

She treats this “transformation” to personhood as mysterious and unquantifiable.

“Like many people who have gone through I.V.F., I have a complicated relationship with [my embryos] 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,” she writes.

Circumstances yet unknown? Are you kidding?

Sussman herself acknowledges embryos are living and capable of independent growth. They will continue to grow unless a more powerful human freezes them, kills them, denies them nutrients, or otherwise inhibits their progress.

It’s not mysterious, and its not rocket science. Human agency — a mother’s choice — is all that stands between a frozen embryo and continued development. If embryos are intrinsically valuable, as the Bible tells us, it is morally wrong for a mother to intentionally stop them from developing.

Why It Matters

“The Embryo Problem” could signal a new social willingness to grapple with the ethical pitfalls of IVF and abortion — something all pro-life advocates should celebrate. But problems with Sussman’s arguments illustrate how complex these conversations can become.

Christians have a moral obligation to participate in these conversations, starting by understanding why embryos should be considered people.

Focus on the Family and the Daily Citizen have resources to help. Check out the links below.

If you’d like to discuss this issue with us further, you can get in touch with us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

To learn more about how assisted reproductive technologies, you can view child rights advocate Katy Faust’s Lighthouse Voices presentation, “The Rights of Children.”

Additional Articles and Resources

IVF: Moral and Ethical Consideration

Perspectives on Surrogate Motherhood

Infertility

Resources: Infertility

Analyzing President Trump’s order Protecting and Expanding Access to IVF

Christians Must Consider the Moral and Ethical Hazards of IVF

Concerns Over Alabama Bill Providing Immunity for IVF Providers

‘Our Babies Have Barcodes.’ The Moral Problems With IVF and Surrogacy.We Need to Talk About Assisted Reproduction

Written by Emily Washburn · Categorized: Life · Tagged: IVF

Mar 28 2025

IVF’s Own ‘House of Horrors’

Fifteen years ago, authorities raided a West Philadelphia abortion clinic owned and operated by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. What was found led investigators to dub the facility a “house of horrors.” In addition to blood-stained furniture, urine-soaked walls, and cat feces, investigators also discovered the remains of 47 children, born and unborn, in containers, boxes, and jars. Gosnell’s clinic targeted primarily poor, minority women. Staff testified that hundreds of infants born alive were killed, often through a method Gosnell called “snipping.” Now described as a “serial killer,” Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, 21 felonies, and 200 other legal violations.

The grand jury report blamed a “complete regulatory collapse,” adding that at the time of Gosnell’s arrest, Philadelphia nail salons faced more regulations and oversights than abortion clinics. In a recent essay in First Things, Erika Anderson documented a different list of ethical horrors that are also birthed from under-regulation and lack of oversight. To be clear, the stories of the “wild west” of “big fertility” are far more sanitized than Gosnell. Nor are they as shocking as what was found in Gosnell’s home and clinic, but that’s only because nothing is that shocking.

For example, a fifty-one-year-old California man who lives with his elderly parents hired a surrogate to carry embryos he “adopted.” He now has custody, with no background check or home study required, of three babies with whom he has no biological relationship. During pregnancy, he asked the surrogate to abort one of the babies, but she “refused and offered to raise the third child herself.” He refused and took all three children, and the woman who carried them “never saw them again.”

Bloomberg recently reported on the dramatic case of businessman Greg Lindberg, whose ex-wife got custody of their three children. Lindberg wanted children who could never be taken away from him so he “conned” young women into donating their eggs and signing over their parental rights in exchange for millions of dollars. He now has sole custody of at least twelve children.

In 2024, a Nashville fertility clinic was shut down after the Tennessee attorney general launched an investigation into Dr. Jaime Vasquez, who allegedly neglected protocols, safety measures, and record-keeping. Court records obtained by the Daily Mail establish that embryo storage tanks at Vasquez’s clinic were not monitored for temperature, and there was no alarm system to alert workers if the temperature reached an unsafe level. According to Anderson, “Patients … lost access to their ‘reserved’ embryos and weren’t told whether they would ever get them back.”

In 2023, a Virginia judge ruled that frozen embryos in dispute because of divorce proceedings “are property.” His decision relied, in part, “on a 19th century law governing the treatment of slaves.” In 2021, the New York Times reported on a couple “shocked to receive a storage fee invoice for frozen embryos they had been told didn’t exist for more than twenty years.” The couple had been told that the embryos they created through IVF had not survived.

Each of these accounts, and the dozens of others that, as one attorney put it, “the public doesn’t even know about,” reveal how irresponsible and inhumane it would be to expand and subsidize this industry that is so under-regulated. Even worse, the regulations that do exist, at least the ones on the books in 49 states, treat frozen embryos as property. Even in otherwise pro-life states, embryos created through IVF have no right to life. Ethicist Charles ­Carmosy described the current legal view of embryos this way: “Imagine a human being who is a captive, an orphan, and a (quite) little child that the surrounding culture deems a non-person all in one.”

If, as Christians believe and science confirms, human life begins at conception, then every single human life deserves respect and protection. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, persons are persons and never should be property. IVF, as currently practiced, treats these persons as property, and justifies doing so by centering adult desire over the rights and wellbeing of children. Like the abortion industry fifteen years ago, the fertility industry is in need of far more regulation and oversight, not less. Even more, it is in need of a better legal framework, one built on the dignity and value of all human beings, not some. If not, then the list of ethical horrors from this industry will continue to grow.

Written by John Stonestreet · Categorized: Life · Tagged: IVF, surrogacy

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2025 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy