Snowflakes

I think John might be getting a little worked up over this one, or at least a little too worked up without knowing the full story.

The issue at hand is the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program and the fact that the NY Times article in which this is featured obliquely mentions that the adopting parents have to be conservative Christians:

Couples adopting or donating Snowflakes embryos are mostly Christian, and most embryo donors are white, Ms. Maze said. Some families are Roman Catholic, even though the church has historically opposed in vitro fertilization.

Couples must agree to adoption-like procedures: receiving families are screened and must undergo counseling, and Snowflakes allows donating and receiving families to designate criteria for each other, meet and maintain contact after birth. Adopting couples must agree not to abort any embryos.

Those conditions were fine with Bob and Angie Deacon of Virginia Beach, Va., who donated their 13 embryos after having twins and being discouraged from another pregnancy by a doctor.

"With another program, to be honest with you, they could have been adopted by lesbian parents, and I'm totally against that," said Mr. Deacon, 35.

It took two and a half years to bring themselves to fill out the papers. On their forms, they said the adopting family must be conservative Christians and, ideally, include a stay-at-home mother.

Look, I think that whole aspect stinks as well, but I don't necessarily know if it actually violates any laws... I *suspect* it might, but if this is an independent organization/business that doesn't receive federal funds, etc., I am not sure this illegal. Of course, if this *is* in fact a business, and the religious right does indeed buy the idea that these embryos are "living," then isn't that essentially trafficking? I really don't know the law on all this, but it is an interesting thought.

Additionally, the "conservative Christian" restrictor on the Snowflakes Program raises an interesting "Better Dead than Red" question: Better an un-used embryo than a child in a non-Christian household? If so, then why does the religious right worry about non-Christians who get abortions?

I myself noticed another component of the article that the reporter should have followed up on: the notion that the adopting parents could not abort. What about cases in which the adopting mother's health is on the line? Is there any "out clause" for that? Who makes the determination if their need is sufficient? What is the penalty under the contract?

As far as the program on the whole is concerned, it pisses me off if for no other reason than there are tons of living, breathing, non-theoretical children who desparately need real homes and real parents... if you are adopting and truly want to make a Christian impact, start there.