Embryo adoption language has pro-choicers scared

Left-over embryo frozen in a "concentration can." "Concentration can" is a term coined by geneticist Jerome LeJeune, who discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome

I found this gem of an article from the Village Voice on embryo adoption.  (Yes, that is sarcasm you read.)  Apparently, the term "embryo adoption" has some pro-choicers very worried. They are concerned about the use of the word "adoption" for the practice of couples "adopting" other parent's embryonic offspring:

Reproductive rights activists and supporters of embryonic stem cell research are watching with growing alarm. "I think it is dangerous," says Sean Tipton, spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. "It's the language of embryo adoption that helps people start equating in their minds an embryo with a child. And if you establish that legally, it becomes very important."

By important, of course, he means bad—bad for in vitro fertilization, bad for the future of embryonic stem cell research, and bad for reproductive liberty.

(Again with those that mythical "reproductive rights" that are nowhere in the US Constitution but still trump everything including religious freedom.)  Some pro-choicers even go on to say that the embryo adoption phenomenon is just a stealth anti-choice movement:

Bonnie Steinbock teaches philosophy and bioethics at SUNY Albany and has written widely on frozen embryos, abortion, and stem cell research....  She's also a member of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. She views the embryo adoption campaign as an anti-abortion, anti–stem cell crusade.

"It's a backdoor way of making embryos seem like people," she says.

Here in lies the twisted hypocrisy so typical of those who defend abortion at all costs.  Some couples want to use their "reproductive rights" by "adopting" other couples unwanted embryos. But this might just wake up the public to the fact that embryos and fetuses are actually living human organisms which is a threat to abortion-on-demand and research on embryos.  Therefore, it is okay to disparage couples who choose "adopt" embryos and the people who facilitate the adoption as "anti-abortion" and "anti-stem cell" even though they are just exercising their "reproductive rights." 

So tossing your "left-over" embryos or donating them to research is good because it fits with the whole pro-abortion mentality.  But putting your embryos up for adoption and allowing them to finish their lives is bad because it challenges the morality of abortion-on-demand and embryo-destructive research.  No wonder "embryo adoption" has pro-choicers worried.

It is the embryo adoption advocate Sam Casey that points out the obvious.  There is a reason there are so many "left-over" embryos in the deep freeze: couples instinctively know their embryos are not just some worthless ball of cells:

[Casey] cites studies like the one published last December by Duke University, which found that patients are largely dissatisfied with their options of disposing of their embryos. Not wanting to donate them to another couple, but also uncertain about the moral implications of discarding or donating them to research, many patients are now delaying their decision by paying storage fees of as much as $750 a year. Others have simply walked away, leaving their doctors in the awkward position of having to decide what to do with them.

"People typically delay the decision, deny the decision, or run from the decision," says Casey. "But why is it such a tough decision if it's just property? It's because they really know what it is—particularly the ones who have been through in vitro fertilization and have already had children."

This is one of the many reason why the Catholic Church opposes IVF.  Because once you create life outside the womb, a whole new set of moral dilemmas arise. Couples so desperate to have a genetically related child do not consider the consequences and then are faced with issues of life and death for their "left-over" offspring.