The Augusta Chronicle:

Rep. James Mills, R-Gainesville, introduced the (embryo) adoption measure, House Bill 388, to address the 20,000 or more frozen embryos in Georgia that donors have no intention of using.

“I do not believe that an embryo, especially a frozen embryo, should be compared to a Popsicle or an ice cube in the refrigerator,” he said. “I believe there are two different values. Clearly you cannot adopt a Popsicle. I think there should be a mechanism by which you can adopt an embryo.”

Every so often, we get a politician that tries to make cells = baby. It won’t ever square with the laws of science. Merely ignoring gravity doesn’t negate its effects, for example.

In this case, Mills wants to create an adoption process for something that isn’t a baby, regardless of how many times it’s echoed in the halls of the Gold Dome. What baby do you know of that can survive in a freezer for ten years and come out perfectly okay?

If you create an “adoption option” then could somebody get a few and use them as a tax deduction? Or take out life insurance?

What if instead we legislated embryos as property and allowed the rightful owners (egg/sperm donor) the ability to give/sell them to willing couples? That’s a solution that might work, but it would seem like human trafficking to Rep. Mills and his like-minded brethren.

How about if we treated embryos as an organ to be donated, like a heart or a kidney? In that case, they wouldn’t be sold and the owners would have rights. But what if the stack o’ cells were donated to a stem cell research company? Or if it enabled another octo-mom?

In all of these cases, the legal and ethical ramifications are enormous. It’s probably time that we legislated some of these thorny issues and create a way that these cells could benefit mankind as opposed to simply being destroyed. But using the word “adoption” to describe the transfer of a frozen group of cells to another is a back-door route to crush a woman’s right to choose.

Advertisements