Snowflake Adoption

  • Thread starter Thread starter whichwaytogo47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whichwaytogo47

Guest
Something has bothered me a lot.

My wife and I are just beginning the adoption process. We’re reviewing adoption agencies and are about a year from going with one. We’re looking into foster care adoption for kids that are available from foster care, looking into international adoption, and might be looking at foster care directly from the state for kids that are unavailable for adoption.

There’s another thing we’re considering. If these three methods don’t work, I was wondering what was most moral: having no children or considering snow-flake adoption. Snowflake adoption is adopting an embryo that would otherwise be destroyed. It’s outside the marital act which appears to be immoral and thus I am concerned to be rationalizing it as ok. The other issue is that a parent initially had excess embroys with the hope of getting a child and thus was initially immoral as well. My other concern is one of eugenics or the destruction of embroys that are perceived to not be normal or typical children and/or ones that might be less viable or less likely to make it to term and I wouldn’t want to encourage the eugenics aspect of it. My wife had a degree in genetic engineering so she can only perceive that you’re saving an embryo that would otherwise be destroyed. She’s also an Evangelical Christian and they don’t have the same hangup on having a baby outside of the marital act.
 
That is a difficult situation and I can see why you are struggling with the right way to handle it. I don’t have an answer, but I recommend reaching out to the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The organization is the perfect one to answer this question. Their mission is, “The National Catholic Bioethics Center, established in 1972, conducts research, consultation, publishing and education to promote human dignity in health care and the life sciences, and derives its message directly from the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Maybe start out by giving them a call or emailing them and go from there. I hope you find an answer.
 
This! I went to a lecture at one of the local parishes a few years back.The keynote speaker was a bioethicist from the CBC.He spoke about the snowflake baby issue.At that time they were still working on a moral and ethical solution for these snowflake babies.If my memory serves me correctly,they were leaning towards allowing invititro of these embryos as a more moral option to destroying them.
 
Would you hesitate to adopt a 3-month-old baby who had been conceived through any means whatsoever, however troubling? No, I don’t think so. The same applies here. Adoption does not encourage the practice in the slightest. It saves a life.
 
Thanks for all the suggestions. I really appreciate the help and trying to do the right thing. I think my moral questions are a change in heart from what I used to think. I used to be a lot more worried about having my genetics included and wasn’t concerned whether a donor egg was used or when a couple used sperm and I didn’t realize what this meant to the infertile spouse thinking that they’d simply want the child to be at least one of them, but the fact of leaving someone out I’ve acknowledged to be wrong.

That said, God turned my life around and I became less like the prodigal son. I became very open to traditional adoption. My wife thought of embryo adoption as an alternative in case we can’t adopt traditionally. I was concerned, at first, that there was the issue that it was immoral by the church because it was outside of the marital act. I realized I was saving a life. I was than worried that if I adopted the embryo that would somehow fund IVF procedures that would result in selective reduction. Lastly, I was concerned that embryos that had chromosome abnormalities would be disposed of and thus to adopt the remaining embryos would be immoral even if it was to save a life. We’d probably want to adopt one child that had Down Syndrome or developmental delays. We’d be okay with getting a normal child. We’d be okay with getting a child with Turner Syndrome, actually that would be preferred. We just want to build our family and are open to special needs.
 
Last edited:
You have a beautiful heart.
My personal response would be that you are not part of others’ misdeed if your intention is to save a child’s life, giving him or her your love and nurture and the opportunity to know and love God.

I gazed with great emotion on the paintings, the notebooks, the models made of the extraordinary drawings, of Leonard da Vinci because my sons had given me the gift of an overseas vacation that included Italy and Florence, and also that I saw works of his in London. If Leonardo da Vinci hadn’t been allowed to live, the world would have lost a man born in 1452 that even today, would be recognized as the artist who painted the Mona Lisa.
He was illegitimate.

A tiny infant who might otherwise be thrown away like trash or used in experiments, might not have the extraordinary abilities of Leonardo, but that child is no less precious, but infinitely precious and loved child of God

It can require research and assistance, and much love and patience to adopt a special-needs infant or child, but I do have a sister and a brother who in their families adopted ‘handicapped’ (aren’t we all in some way?) children, each of those two siblings and their spouses have an adopted Downs child, two with high-maintenance children with complex issues, and a child who needed many surgeries even to be able to feed through the mouth. My sister already had 5 children of their own, and my brother, who with his wife adopted three, having already raised three biological children…

Any of us who are parents do know that raising children is the most challenging thing we are likely to do in our lives, so particularly if adopting at any stage, older children, or children with some kind of development issue, we need to know what we are capable of. I know without doubt my husband couldn’t have handled what two of my siblings and their spouses have. Their adopted children are now late teens and early twenties, and for some of those children there is never-leaving-home to make their own independent life because they can’t cope without carers, which leaves parents with the challenge of knowing the children may still need intense care if they themselves died sooner than the children. The children were adopted as infants or young children, and are multi-cultural, but Australian born.

I’ll join you in prayer that God will guide you and your husband to the little ones He may desire to entrust to you both.
God bless you
 
Last edited:
whichwaytogo47 said:
It’s outside the marital act
Click to expand...
Isn’t adoption outside the marital act?

Why are you taking responsibilities for others sins? Has any one every suggested to you that you may be scrupulous? I think maybe you should look at this issue before you think of having kids.
 
No, but I do struggle with pragmatics. I just did not want to be responsible for the destruction of embryos since I’m passionately pro life or the selection of genes since I’m anti-eugenics. I understand I was probably over thinking.

I love adoption. It just was hard for me to see embryo adoption being similar to traditional adoption. I’d want to do it morally, such as working with one that does adoption. I don’t know if it’s moral if they do ivf and by adopting the embryo if I’d be funding the ivf. Just want to do my due diligence and be doing my best to preserve and protect life. Appreciate the comments.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
Would you hesitate to adopt a 3-month-old baby who had been conceived through any means whatsoever, however troubling? No, I don’t think so. The same applies here. Adoption does not encourage the practice in the slightest. It saves a life.
Click to expand...
The issue is that it still detaches the procreative reality from the sexual act.

That being said, I agree that it is the lesser of two evils, over destroying the children. Neither option is ideal, but I hope the Church ultimately allows snowflake adoptions for families who are unable to conceive for themselves. I don’t think it’s a good idea to provide a general allowance because then it give proponents of IVF a foothold for claiming they are providing a moral service.
 
Last edited:
Whatever your final decision, i wish you the best of luck! My wife and i couldn’t concieve, and chose to remain childless. While we don’t neccessarily regret it, we do wonder what the ‘other side’ would have been like…

Again, congratulations on your choice.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
That being said, I agree that it is the lesser of two evils, over destroying the children. Neither option is ideal, but I hope the Church ultimately allows snowflake adoptions for families who are unable to conceive for themselves. I don’t think it’s a good idea to provide a general allowance because then it give proponents of IVF a foothold for claiming they are providing a moral service.
Click to expand...
You totally get my concern. It’s more than whether I’m responsible for their sin but if I consider grave sin to be wrong, I cannot in good conscience steer someone else towards it (a gay couple having a secular marriage).

I know that I must adopt and must use the entire batch. If I’m paying for adoption services and it’s separate from the IVF i know I’m doing the right thing. It’s very hypothetical since we’re trying traditional adoption first.

Many hugs and thank you
 
ProdglArchitect said:
The issue is that it still detaches the procreative reality from the sexual act.
Click to expand...
Yes, the actions of the doctors and the original in-vitro-seeking couple do detach those things. However, the action of the couple adopting a “snowflake” baby do not. It is similar to adopting a child conceived by rape.

I guess I do see one interesting difference, though. In this case, you have to communicate with and cooperate with the individuals who committed the sin that set the whole thing in motion. It’s like asking the rapist to adopt “his” child. I would certainly find that unnerving, but I’m not certain whether any moral principles come into play.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Yes, the actions of the doctors and the original in-vitro-seeking couple do detach those things. However, the action of the couple adopting a “snowflake” baby do not. It is similar to adopting a child conceived by rape.

I guess I do see one interesting difference, though. In this case, you have to communicate with and cooperate with the individuals who committed the sin that set the whole thing in motion. It’s like asking the rapist to adopt “his” child. I would certainly find that unnerving, but I’m not certain whether any moral principles come into play.
Click to expand...
Adopting a snowflake baby still involves artificial implantation, which means that a woman is made pregnant through means other than the sexual act, which is where the moral problem comes into play. That is the root cause for debate over the issue.

Like I said though, I’d rather see those children adopted by infertile families than destroyed. Still, that’s not my decision to make, and until the Church actual makes a declaration on the subject its a matter for prudential judgment.
 
Last edited:
My concern is the Church would rule against IVF only to later reconsider it in terms of embryo transfer, thus many couples went childless and many embryos were destroyed unnecessarily. That said, I believe if a Catholic is to go thru embryo adoption that 1) they ought to adopt all the embryos, 2) they ought to implant all the embryos preferably or only if they do so one at a time, 3) they ought to use an adoption agency rather than working with an IVF provider and they are to ensure that the adoption agency is not paying a fee to or otherwise compensating the IVF provider, and 4) they are to do it without regard to the viability or the genetic makeup of the embryos, if possible as this is the eugenics aspect. In Fatima, we’ve learned that the marriage would be under attack; marriage must be respected. All life created by a procreative act must be respected.

When life is created outside of the procreative act, it’s immoral just as life that is destroyed from the marital act. But it gets so complex when you have the possible destruction of artificial life outside of the marital act or the disrespect of the marital act either when the “mom” acts as a surrogate or when a surrogate is hired for the family because the mom is unable to carry the embryo that she and her husband has adopted. Because it’s of a prenatal state, it was never intended to be outside of the husband and wife that initially was supposed to create it. But even illegitimate children who are born out of wedlock are not to be aborted simply because of the sin of fornication and/or adultery. And this is where my concern about reversal could occur; even though Jesus designated the Church to make decisions that its moral followers would follow, we’re not free from sin or poor judgment that needs to be reconsidered. So my hope is that they perpetually leave it to prudential judgment rather than establish a moral conclusion to it because there’s no way to create moral out of immoral. I agree with the following comments that the bullet is not the sin, but the intention of the act. Embryo rescue seems to be an interesting proposition particularly if you’re not able to provide for the remaining embryos that have been adopted.

I think that babies ought to be created by a mother and a father and that IVF and abortion both hurt the ability for those whom can raise a child to adopt a child who needs a loving home and needs to be brought to Christ. Ultimately, I wouldn’t want embryo adoption to lead to more IVF and/or more embryos destroyed. I believe in the creation and preservation of life and that eugenics or only wanting a “normal/typical” child is inherently evil as it denies the dignity of everyone of God’s creation. Thus, I don’t know if giving some embryos life means that others are as a result destroyed or created illegitimately to replace the adopted embryos.

Thanks again for all your help; it’s so greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
There has been no church ruling on this very complex subject. My understanding on the matter is that it really boils down to where you feel the sin lies and to what lengths you feel you can go to to save a life.

To me, the sin has already been committed. Artificially placing a conceived child into the womb is simply giving that CHILD (who’s already a fully fledged, ensouled human) the opportunity to grow. This is a person with a soul. The use of the IVF is simply using a process similar to one that is sinful.

I see it as the difference between murder and just killing. Shooting a person for no reason is a grave mortal sin, even if they life. Shooting a person to disable them because they came to your house to kidnap your child is not only morally permissible but morally correct.

I see very end portion of delivering the IVF embryo like that gun. The sin is not the bullet.
 
The only thing I can think of is that two wrongs don’t make a right or that we’re never supposed to think in terms of an ends justifies the means argument. But I do agree that self-defense is morally acceptable.
 
Last edited:
The issue I have with “two wrongs don’t make a right” is where is the wrong? Is putting a fully living human in an organ made to support that fully living human wrong.

Taking the egg from the woman- wrong
Taking the sperm from the man- wrong (and no way to make it right)
Combining the egg and the sperm outside of the marital embrace- very wrong

This last step–the combining of the egg and the sperm is what I believe is truly outside of the church and church teaching. It is the sin of creating life outside the marital embrace.

However–the act of placing that very alive child into an organ? I’m not sure that’s actually “wrong” but rather often the final result of many wrong things. It uses a tool that people have used that gravely sin against God, but somehow I still can’t see this last step as wholly sinful in itself…because the child is already conceived.
 
whichwaytogo47 said:
We’re looking into foster care adoption for kids that are available from foster care, looking into international adoption, and might be looking at foster care directly from the state for kids that are unavailable for adoption.
Click to expand...
Read up on what really fuels or is behind many kids in foreign orphanages, they don’t work like foster parenting does here. For example I know it is a fairly frequent practice in Haiti for a parent to put their child in an orphanage because they cannot support them for a while. They know their kids will at least be getting a meal. These kids are often picked up again when they are able to provide support again, so not all of them are parentless kids. In other countries I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there was something of an industry behind them.

The thing I’ve learned over time is when we intervene, often with the best of intentions, rarely does it go the way we think it is. Imagine if a billionaire came into your neighborhood and decided a massive goat farm would improve your lot. Or bringing in a whole bunch of people to do your job. Or deciding that your children would be better off in China. It’s a daunting issue.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top