I do find myself noting that most of the advocates of this are husbands, whose wives presumably get a say in the matter but are, presumably, content to let their husbands make decisions in this as in everything else. (In this as in so much else, they are aspiring to a model which has little to do even with the Old Testament, let alone with anything that went on in the early church, except sometimes in Paul's head. There are too many confident stroppy women in the Old Testament for any of this to be described as 'Biblical' - but I digress.)
What does strike me as remarkable, though, and in this sentence remarkable is Roz weaselspeak for fucking incredibly stupid, mean and illogical is that according to the Guardian story the agency fixing this for them is determined not to let lesbians adopt embryos. Now, if they are really concerned about the survival of these embryos - and they talk about doing business with the in vitro people as a necessary evil - why on earth would they care about the sexuality, or indeed the religion, of adopting parents? Or do they believe that to be brought up by lesbians is to guarantee the child a seat in Hell?
What this actually exposes is that they don't really believe in the absolute sacredness of embryos' lives, because if they did, they would not care who adopts them. Which means that as usual they are lying about their motives and engaged in cheap point-scoring. I pity those children, who are going to be brought up to be obsessively grateful and hopefully will resent the hell out of it.