IVF

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”:

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,

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.

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,

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

“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