The ‘Embryo Question’ relies on an empty premise

Published April 9, 2025 10:37am ET



After three long essays in the New York Times’s “Embryo Question,” the series ends with a stunning confession of complete indecision about what the human embryo is  — aside from the assertion that “Their meaning can only ever be contingent.” If it sounds like nothingness, that is the premise.

The first essay in the series serves as an introduction to the question. What is our “obligation” to the embryos, and what is the boundary of scientific research? It convinces the reader, belonging to whichever persuasion, of the other side’s actual investment in the matter. It follows that the second essay pushes into the uncomfortable — or morally reprehensible — topic of genetic screening and optimization through companies such as Orchid. Author Anna Louie Sussman applies experience with video footage of her child’s development as an embryo and, in doing so, pulls away slightly from the free-rein position on embryo use she described throughout.

Already a print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account

Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.

Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.

Get Unlimited Access

Already a member? Log in

Cancel anytime.