Answer this question using the reading below. your answer should be short and effective (one paragraph should be fine), and type your answers please!!

A.Z v. B.Z.

Question: You Be the Judge- Should the court enforce a contract for the use of the fertilised eggs against the father's wishes? This debate will fall under the umbrella of public policy and legality. Use just a few sentences on this topic.

Facts: A and B, a married couple, were having difficulties conceiving a child. They chose to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), which involves removing the womans eggs and combining them in a petri dish with the mans sperm. A and Bs process yielded multiple fertilized eggs (or pre-embryos), which resulted in the birth of their twin daughters. The couple chose to freeze two extra vials of pre-embryos for possible future implantation. During the fertility process, A and B signed various required, preprinted consent forms agreeing to undergo IVF. The consent forms primary purpose was to explain to the donors the benefits and risks of freezing pre-embryos. At the bottom of one of these forms, the wife wrote in that if they ever separated, she could still use the pre-embryos. The husband duly agreed. Years later, the marriage was on the rocks. The wife had one of the frozen pre-embryos implanted without informing her husband, who learned of the news from his insurance company. Drama ensued. The husband filed for divorce. The wife got a restraining order. As part of the divorce, the husband asked the court to prohibit his wife from using the remaining pre-embryos. The wife argued that it was a simple matter of contract law. The lower court declared the agreement unenforceable as against public policy. The wife appealed.

Argument for the Wife: A contract is a contract. Both my client and her husband entered into this agreement freely and with full knowledge of the possible consequences. They each signed multiple consent forms establishing their wishes. Although it is not easy for people to anticipate the future of their relationship when they sign these forms, that has never been a reason to invalidate a perfectly good contract. The possibility of divorce for this (or any) couple was a fact known to the husband when he signed the contracts. The whole point of these contracts was to minimize misunderstanding, ensure the parties liberty to procreate, and provide needed certainty for the fertility treatments. The court should enforce this contract.

Argument for the Husband: Your honors, those consent forms were not really contracts between the husband and wife, they were merely medical releases required by law. Since the parties signed those consent forms, much has changed. The couple did not anticipate the betrayal, the divorce, the restraining order . . . is that a way to bring a child into the world? This is much more than a simple matter of contract law. Courts have always been hesitant to meddle in intimate family affairs on public policy grounds. No court should force someone to become a parent. It is as simple as that.