Snowflake Babies

[KephasAugustine]

I heard today of something called “snowflake babies,” and while I researched it, I didn’t come up with much. I’ll admit I didn’t try too hard. What I’m interested in finding out is the Church’s stance on it. What I heard today was that there are frozen fetuses from in vitro fertilization that people are adopting. Obviously, the adoption is better than letting the babies die…what I want to know is (first) more information on what ‘snowflake babies’ actually are, and (second) what the Church says about it.

Any help will be very much appreciated.

 

[Dale_M]

I think the term “snowflake baby” got the attention of many Americans when President Bush held a White House ceremony for several children who had once been frozen embryos.

Here is a news article about it, which gives some background as well:
cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/national/main712541.shtml

The Church’s position is that human life begins at conception. Leaving the embryos frozen, forever, is contrary to human dignity. And discarding the embryos is a form of murder.

This is why the Church has long opposed in-vitro fertilization, since the procedure often results in multiple embryos which are not implanted in the mother’s womb.

 

[manualman]

It’s a sticky wicket, not formally ruled upon by the church.

The Church has declared in-vitro itself to be immoral because it disrespects the human right of all persons to be the outcome of the love between their parents.

But in the question of what can/should be done with children ALREADY existing, but in frozen storage, there is no clarity yet.

There are good theological arguments on both sides. Myself, I think if you choose to adopt and implant one of these children in such a way that you are clear that your action is a rescue and not an endorsement of what put the child in jeopardy in the first place, it is morally good and possibly even heroic. If you do it as a way of sidestepping church teaching against in-vitro… that’s problematic.

Oh, what ARE they? In-vitro normally involves the ‘harvesting’ of numerous eggs from the hopeful mom. They then collect a sperm sample from the hopeful dad and combine the whole mess in a petri dish (so to speak). Many embryos then form and the scientists separate them into individual test tubes. Mom and the doctors decide how many they want to inject into her (often more than she’d be willing to carry to term) and the rest get tossed in the freezer. Many, perhaps most in-vtro patients wind up with more embryos than they want. Pretty gruesome to those of us who consider life to begin at conception.

 

[lizaanne]

Myself, I think if you choose to adopt and implant one of these children in such a way that you are clear that your action is a rescue and not an endorsement of what put the child in jeopardy in the first place, it is morally good and possibly even heroic. If you do it as a way of sidestepping church teaching against in-vitro… that’s problematic.

And - it does in a way support the practice of in-vitro by using these unwanted embryos - something the Church is against. I’ve had a priest tell me in the past that adopting these embryos is not a moral option because of the misunderstanding of Church teaching it could give, and that the use of in-vitro is against Church teaching as well.

Sticky wicket to be sure.

~Liza

 

[manualman]

That argument always bothers me. We don’t ban regular adoption on the grounds that it somehow endorses the unwed sexual activity that created the child, do we? How is this REALLY different?

The best argument I’ve yet heard against it is that it is a violation of the marrital union between a man and wife for her to go through the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth via means other than normal sex. In other words, the unitive nature of married sex might be about more than just the hot n sweaty part! And the procreative aspect might extend farther than the moment of conception. It’s a deep point that bears thinking about.