Is Abandonment Abortion?

Can this be seen as anything but pro-life? (I happen to be pro-life, but I'm not too sure life begins at conception. I just think that most of the behaviors that lead to abortion deserve some consequence, and that too many abortions are performed a little late. I am for Plan B and stem-cell research, but against the 12 week abortion. Maybe not entirely pro-life, but not entirely pro-choice either. Nasty political comments will be deleted.) What makes me laugh about this column is that it bills a frozen embryo as Katrina's Tiniest Survivor. Never mind all of the living people who could have been rescued in those flat-bottomed boats, the fact is that it is implied that these parents are deeply religious and see their baby and the frozen embryo it once was as being the same person. They then go on to say that they're not sure they will use the remaining three embryos, in part because their toddler now takes up so much attention, and also because pregnancy is hard on the mother.

So let me get this straight. The embryo that became Noah can be viewed as a child which needed to be rescued, but the other three can't? And viewing such embryos as conceived children already in existence is fine until you realize that a) pregnancy takes a lot out of you, and b) once thawed, children actually require parenting. It's a lot easier to defend all unborn human life when it's either frozen or somebody else's problem, isn't it? And it's a lot easier to decide to put off carrying an already-conceived child when you can hide behind the thin line between destruction and suspended animation in an ice tray. These people make me sick with their short-sighted views. Maybe it's just the reporter who wrote the article injecting his own views into the narrative. But either way, it's a very narrow way of looking at the world. Would abortion be legal if they could freeze the embryo rather than destroy it? Even if the parents had no intention of ever implanting it?