McGrath, my issue with this is that to a large extent this *was* considered by the original committee. That's the very reason why the permission of both parties is required - both are considered equal "owners" of the zygotes, so neither can take any action without the other's approval. The only thing that wasn't considered was the question of what if the couple separate and one of the parties can no longer reproduce.

As far as your suggestion of a solution, that's no solution at all. Under that system, the man has no rights, ever. Even if the man didn't want the child, the woman can go ahead through fertility treatments and have one (and let's face it, a quantity of sperm would not be too difficult to obtain from your husband). The man is then forced to support a child he doesn't want and played no part in producing.

Or to come up with an example for the men, suppose a couple separated and the man entered a stable gay relationship. If he and his partner wish to have children, surrogacy is their only option, and his only option for a child then is to make use of the stored zygotes. Or another similar example would be if one of the women remarried and her new husband is sterile. So examples across both sexes are possible. Why then should it be the woman who automatically gets the "privilege" of overriding the man's wishes over what happens to his reproduction?

Regarding sperm bank donors, some children of donors have tracked down their genetic fathers, sometimes with the assistance of the sperm banks who said at the time that they would keep the information secret. I don't think that's much of an example.

If you think there's something "overridingly important" about women's rights to reproduction, and how her self-esteem suffers without it, by all means say so. I'll then remind you of how "overridingly important" it is to a man that he has a job, and how his self-esteem suffers without it. Either we have equal rights, or we have discrimination. Choose one.

Graham.