Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-26-2003, 01:51 PM

Why is the government giving money to 'Snowflakes'?

Flakes indeed.

Quote:

One of the strangest outcomes of the ongoing debate over embryonic stem-cell research is the government�s use of taxpayer money to support a little-known private organization called Snowflakes. Devoted to encouraging couples to �adopt� human embryos, Snowflakes has received over $1 million from the Bush administration and Congress.

WHILE HELPING people have babies is ethically commendable, there is something very strange about extending the use of the term �adoption� to embryos. Children get adopted, but ... embryos?

And, it is even stranger that the federal government is buying into this way of thinking.

melinie007 · 06-28-2003, 12:09 AM

I saw a documentry on a similar (maybe the same?) program quite a while ago.

Not all left over fertilized eggs are believed to be 'unhealthy' as that article claims - but I do agree that using an infertile couples eggs probably doesn't offer the best chance of success.

The documentry I watched focussed on the fact that people who use IVF have themselves struggled with infertility. Therefore they are often very willing to want to help other childless couples. In couples where both the woman and man have problems, a fertilized egg with both components 'donated' is there best shot.

The really warped thing about it all was they had a 'reunion' scene where the original couple who had the IVF and two couples who had 'adopted' the other eggs got their kids/toddlers together to bond. They were all full brothers and sisters, born into different families.

I guess if you do think a fertilized egg is a person than 'adopting' them out can counter concerns about IVF. But yeah, calling it adoption is probably a bit much.

Kevbo · 06-28-2003, 04:03 AM

This is one of the great conundrums that religious thinking causes in society. Because most Christians subscribe to the notion of an extrapersonal soul, they don't limit themself to any biologically reasonable definition of "personhood," like brain activity or such. Discarding an unused embryo is, in the rational sense, no less moral than using a condom in that both scenarios realize less potential human lives. Not realizing potential human lives as a basis for calling something immoral is a shaky foundation, because we could sure be having a lot more kids overall and it definitely won't help us any. They wouldn't get away with it if they didn't have the "soul" concept.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2003, 12:09 AM	#2
melinie007 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: canberra, australia Posts: 27	I saw a documentry on a similar (maybe the same?) program quite a while ago. Not all left over fertilized eggs are believed to be 'unhealthy' as that article claims - but I do agree that using an infertile couples eggs probably doesn't offer the best chance of success. The documentry I watched focussed on the fact that people who use IVF have themselves struggled with infertility. Therefore they are often very willing to want to help other childless couples. In couples where both the woman and man have problems, a fertilized egg with both components 'donated' is there best shot. The really warped thing about it all was they had a 'reunion' scene where the original couple who had the IVF and two couples who had 'adopted' the other eggs got their kids/toddlers together to bond. They were all full brothers and sisters, born into different families. I guess if you do think a fertilized egg is a person than 'adopting' them out can counter concerns about IVF. But yeah, calling it adoption is probably a bit much.

06-28-2003, 04:03 AM	#3
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	This is one of the great conundrums that religious thinking causes in society. Because most Christians subscribe to the notion of an extrapersonal soul, they don't limit themself to any biologically reasonable definition of "personhood," like brain activity or such. Discarding an unused embryo is, in the rational sense, no less moral than using a condom in that both scenarios realize less potential human lives. Not realizing potential human lives as a basis for calling something immoral is a shaky foundation, because we could sure be having a lot more kids overall and it definitely won't help us any. They wouldn't get away with it if they didn't have the "soul" concept.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.