The "agreement" involved here isn't an individual agreement, it's a set of rules laid down as law a few years ago in the Fertility Act, on the advice of a committee of "experts". And it's interesting to note that the leading light in that committee, Lady Warnock, has now said in the context of this case, that she thinks they got the recommendation and the law badly wrong:

"It's terribly, terribly unsatisfactory because we didn't envisage the case where the partners would not agree and the woman would desperately want the baby. I think we were at fault there. If the law says the man has the right to prevent even the attempt at having a baby, it's a bad law and should be changed."

That comes from a TV programme about it last night - here is a link to a good review (by Nancy Banks-Smith, who is the only TV reviewer I know where you can enjoy the reviews even if you missed the programme) - The parent trap

Harvey wrote: "My point is that the same rights must apply to the father, and the woman must agree to carry the child if she leaves the relationship and the man wants his baby born ". But why should it mean that at all? The embryo could in principle be born without the genetic mother having any further part to play, if that is what she chooses in this situation.

I think the whole argument about "equality" here is a bit misplaced. Men and women are in a different situation - men don't get pregnant, sperm donation is a lot less complicated than egg donation. What is involved is not so much "equality" as "equivalence".

(Incidentally, I'm a bit puzzled why Martin is chipping in here. If he doesn't like BS threads why does he feel he wants to open them up? Perhaps he might like to start up a separate BS thread saying he doesn't think BS threads belong here - including that onepresumably... And that honestly is not intended in a hostile way, I'm just a bit puzzled.)