I'm too tired to look but I'm just asking, what's the context?
The plans for these embryos, the reason they are frozen, are because they are intended to be used for future use which happens to be a living person.
In of itself, no I don't consider an embryo a living person(I don't think), but in this case they just may require protection that would deter some whackball from destroying them.
It's a pain to play along with you though because you falsely compare things. Ofcourse it's not the same as a living child in any case if you want to be technical.
However, a growing newborn inside a womans stomach is not the same as a small child either yet as a civil society we recognize it as a living being none the same and as such have introduced double homicide laws for killing pregnant women.
So, if a bunch of embryos are frozen with the intent to raise life, then sure, why not protect them? Some people are too stupid to respect that. It's a shame in todays society such a law would be needed.
"Alabama, which ranks near the bottom among states for education, and near the top for teenage pregnancy or infant death rate. Any surprise? " - Woody
Why would you equate that law, which is new or not even passed, to the reason for teenage pregnancy or infant death? Or why would ranking bottom for education have anything to do with this?