You made some excellent points there about the Darwinian definition of "fitness."
I understand what you're saying, too, about "pro-person" or "pro-individual." Those would be good terms in most contexts, but I think the author in this case was trying to emphasize "human" meaning "having species intactness" as opposed to "part human, part animal and part machine" or "interpecies embryo."
We strongly believe in the sanctity of the human "person" or "individual," but -- in a slightly different sense --- we do also care about the integrity of the human species per se.
There's a much deeper discussion we could have...about questions like, "What does it mean to be 'human'?" and also questions about natural law. And "is it bad to save a life through genetic engineering, if it requires allowing patents to give incentive to development of life-saving technologies?" etc.
Unfortunately, the FR censorship-squad would probably come out of the woodwork if we tried anything beyond knee-jerking and sloganeering. :-(
These issues are far from simple.