How far are we willing to go in the name of “progress”?

Picture a menu like you might find in a restaurant, but instead of choosing your next meal, you’re selecting your baby’s characteristics. Blue eyes or brown? Dark or light hair? Your nose or your spouse’s?

The field of genetics may not have reached that point yet, but it’s getting close.

Genetic testing is already a standard practice for couples exploring in vitro fertilization, or IVF, to grow their families. Embryos created in labs are routinely screened for various genetic abnormalities and then culled based on the results. Meanwhile, calls for loosening ethically based restrictions on germline genome editing — the genetic engineering of human beings — have already begun.

“There are no sound reasons to delay the use of genome editing due to excessive caution,” bioethics and genetics researcher Kevin Richard Smith asserted in a July 2024 article in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

“Starting genome editing sooner will allow future children to experience its benefits earlier,” Smith wrote. “As the practice becomes more widespread, we can expect rapid technological advancements, leading to future generations of people benefitting from avoidance of, or reduced susceptibility to, the myriad of disorders that presently afflict humanity.”

Of course, the concept of genetic cleansing is nothing new. The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, popular among elites, fueled Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s push for widespread access to birth control and abortion and the Nazis’ genetic experimentation throughout their concentration camps.

Notably, just two months ago many on the Left went into a tizzy over a denim ad they bizarrely swore was a revival of Hitler’s Aryan supremacy. Yet the same people fuming over actress Sydney Sweeney’s “great jeans” would likely only have positive things to say about IVF, a process through which human beings are created in petri dishes and then selectively implanted according to their genetic code.

The truth is we are already halfway down the slippery slope to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. But how far are we willing to go and when is it too late to turn back?

Playing God

On Sept. 27, the scientific community celebrated what would have been the 100th birthday of Robert Edwards, the man often heralded as the father of IVF.

Edwards’ Nobel Prize-winning research led to the birth of the world’s first “test tube baby,” Louise Brown, in 1978, marking the dawn of a new era in assisted reproductive technology. But one unfortunate truth of Edwards’ legacy that his admirers often omit is his affiliation with the eugenics movement.

Edwards was reportedly a longtime member of the Eugenics Society in Britain — now called the Adelphi Genetics Forum — and served on the organization’s council as a trustee at three different times.

During a rare interview in 2003, he told the London Times that his research was about more than just infertility. “I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory,” he said.

His conclusion: “It was us.”

Edwards never denounced his support for eugenics, and it isn’t hard to see how the technology he developed could be exploited to that end. In fact, it already has been.

In 2019, a court in Shenzhen, China, sentenced researcher He Jiankui to three years in prison for genetically modifying three human embryos, forging ethical review documents, and then misleading doctors into implanting them into the wombs of women via IVF.

Jiankui’s alleged goal was to make the babies resistant to HIV infection. The ethical concerns of experimenting on human babies evidently were not a factor.

Federal law has effectively banned germline gene editing in the United States for now, though there are interested parties who would like to change that.

Tumbling Down the Slippery Slope

Though usually not required, preimplantation genetic testing is a popular choice among prospective parents attempting to conceive through IVF. Vendors promise to speed up what can be a lengthy process by screening for genetic anomalies that could prevent successful implantation or increase the possibility of miscarriage.

But some companies have begun offering more in-depth testing that goes beyond genetic anomalies. Orchid, for example, offers “whole-genome sequencing” to screen for neurodevelopmental disorders, birth defects, and risk levels for cancer and other diseases. Meanwhile, Heliospect Genomics reportedly offers IQ screening and has suggested that its process could even produce an average IQ gain of more than six points, according to undercover footage obtained by the Guardian.

Sadly, at least as far as preimplantation screening for future disease risks is concerned, an astonishing 72 percent of U.S. adults approve of the practice, according to a 2023 Harvard Medical School survey published last year. Further, nearly one-third (30 percent) said they approved of selecting embryos based on the likelihood of certain physical traits, while another 30 percent said they would consider undergoing IVF for the sole purpose of gaining access to genetic testing.

Soon, everyone could have “great jeans.” But at what cost?

Thanks to “intended dad” Matt Tolbert’s brutal honesty, we have an idea.

Tolbert and his husband rented the wombs of two women in Mexico to birth them two baby boys. In a video he posted to TikTok last year, Tolbert explained that 28 of the 40 frozen eggs they purchased survived the thawing process and were fertilized. Of those 28 eggs, just 16 developed into “usable embryos” that were sent for genetic testing.

Using Post-It notes to represent the remaining embryos, Tolbert illustrated how the two gay men whittled down the list, casually tossing Post-Its — his children — aside as he explained the various genetic defects for which they had been deemed deficient.

“All in all, we’re so happy that we decided to purchase as many frozen eggs as we could, 40, because that leaves us with these 10 embryos for two babies,” Tolbert said, adding that they had already decided which two they would try to implant first.

Tolbert’s tone-deaf presentation aside, his demonstration highlights another important ethical concern of IVF: The process produces more death than it does life.

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology reports that more than 95,000 babies were born out of more than 432,000 IVF cycles in the United States in 2023. How many more unique individuals were discarded after someone decided they didn’t make the cut?

Unsurprisingly, the industry never shares those numbers.

A Natural Alternative

In a society where abortion is idolized and children are seen as a stumbling block to happiness and success, the desire to become a parent is worthy of commendation and encouragement — especially for those who have struggled with infertility.

Two years ago, I lost a child due to miscarriage. Having experienced that soul-crushing pain, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But even the purest intentions and desires of our hearts can lead to destruction.

In the case of IVF, the technology certainly has a benefit, but I would argue that one benefit is dramatically outweighed by its risks for the future of mankind.

If we continue down the path we are on, the task of deciding the world’s genetic winners and losers will eventually fall to someone. Who will get that honor, and which skin colors, facial features, intelligence quotients, and personality traits will be discarded in the process?

The good news is there are alternatives for prospective parents that don’t carry the same risks.

Adoption, for one, is an option most couples are already aware of. But for those hoping for biological children, restorative reproductive medicine is another approach that aims to diagnose and treat the underlying causes of infertility rather than bypass them. Though less well known, the method has gained traction in recent years as a natural and more affordable alternative to IVF that carries none of the ethical problems of eugenics, the freezing and destruction of human life, or the circumvention of God’s design for procreation.

Hormonal imbalances, polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, low sperm count — these are all conditions that could contribute to infertility. Doctors practicing restorative reproductive medicine will screen for such issues and work with the body to restore normal reproductive function.

President Donald Trump, who undoubtedly means well, has been vocal in the past about his support for IVF. But as part of his administration’s focus is to Make America Healthy Again, he and his Cabinet should consider promoting the natural alternative of restorative reproductive medicine over a technology that poses a real danger to the future of humanity.

READ MORE from Samantha Flom:

We Are Charlie Kirk, And We Will Not Be Silenced.

Pedophiles Are Buying Children. Does Surrogacy Deserve More Scrutiny?

Samantha Flom is a senior investigative researcher for Restoration News covering life issues