To Pete, Cov
How can you say that the father not having to give permission for women to abort is inequality? Do you have any idea how completely unwanted pregnancies destroy your life? You can't run, work, your back kills, your ankles swell up, and then, suddenly you have a squalling baby which only sleeps during the day. And then what happens when the man who refused to let you have the abortion can't cope with the pressure, finds a bimbo and leaves? Yep, I do have issues with this sort of thing, but I still think that you are completely out of order in saying that a man has any right to make a woman carry a baby she doesn't want to. Its not like he has to do anything.

Nicky, Manchester,

Yes Terry Jones of Liverpool, except that I am not an American. I am Australian living in New York and am hardly religious at that. There's simply no doubt that this man has done this woman a tremendous wrong, even if the court got it right (which sadly, in this case, they did). What, by the way, has your misplaced nationalism got to do with this?

Dottie, New York,

The poor woman, I really feel for her. However I think she's taken the wrong line and there may still be time.

She should immediately appeal for a stay on the destruction of the embryos (and possibly an injunction against the clinic on destroying them) pending making a settlement with the father of these embryos, including a waiver of paternal responsibility and fathers' rights.

Meantime, she's gotten enough media attention -- set up a website and raise funds to pay off the guy. If she could raise 250,000 Euros, I think the guy might just change his mind in short order.

Kris, Vancouver, Canada

As a taxpayer and a responsible person, happy about the result. Wouldn't want to increase the number of single mothers and associated costs to society, including juvenile crime and bad behaviour predominantly associated with children of "mothers" who use the system to claim benefits and those who "think" they can give the child a balanced upbringing.

ron, middlesbrough, uk

I throughly agree with Jack from Norwich :

"What next? Men demanding that their children from previous relationships should be put to death, post-natal?"

This is so unfair and I think that the Judges have got the basic rule of humanity wrong!!!

Melissa, Muar, Johor / Malaysia

If any action warrants one God-almighty karmic thwack, what this man has done is certainly up there. I actually feel kind of sorry for him now.To go back on a promise that was MORE than written in blood YEARS ago is not just morally degraded and entirely dishonourable - in this case its absolutely terrible and totally unnecessary. For the rest of his life he'll have to live with the fact that he did someone who loved him the worst kind of wrong there is - he actually killed her children.

Dottie, New York, New York

There are too many stupid Americans here ascribing children to their fairy tale god, and then imagining some final day of reckoning to this poor man.

The courts upheld the law as it stands, not a religious bigoted view of how the law should be.

This should never have been funded from the public pot, nor should ANY fertility treatment

Having children is NOT a right.

Terry Jones, Liverpool, UK

People separate from their partners all the time, sometimes after the conception or birth of a child - so, why should Mr Johnston get to halt the development of the embryos?

What next? Men demanding that their children from previous relationships should be put to death, post-natal?

If Mr Johnston hadn't been so eager to spread his seed in the first place, Ms Evans would've been able to have a child with a willing father or donor. And it was only because Ms Evans was unfortunate enough to have cancer that those embryos weren't conceived in her body.

What a cruel betrayal that poor woman has had to endure, from a person she once loved enough to put the fate of her unborn children solely in his hands.

I hope women everywhere hear of Mr Johnston's sick deed, and refuse to give him any children of his own.

Jack, Norwich,

"The next eighteen years of child support and seeing his child for a few hours at the weekend."

Please. Read. The. Article. Carefully.

Thank you!

starling, Lancaster,

I can't believe this case even went this far. Sure in consenting to have her eggs fertilized with his sperm and frozen is consent! When a man has a one night stand without using protection he is consenting to have a child with that woman therefore choosing to have fertilized embroys freezed for a later date demonstrates that a great deal of thought must have been put into the decision and I am sure he would have been well aware of the consequences.

Think logically! Would you really expect a pregnant women to abort a child because her husband has decided to divorce her? No of course not, so how is this any different. You wouldn't put your children into care if you split up with your partner because he decided he didn't want to be part of a family with you and you wouldn't ask a father's permission for a baby to born.

The bottom line is he has already given his consent when he agreed to have the eggs fertilized with his sperm so where is the case here, its madness!

Fiona, Bordesley, UK

Apparently the courts that affected this outcome ignored the very simple wisdom that is found in letting Ms Evans have half of the embryos and letting Mr. So-and-So have the other half. Half of the content of the embryos was Ms. Evans' own to begin with. The courts have merely performed another governmental 'taking', and in so doing have demonstrated their proclivity to side with those who would extinguish life rather than those who would uphold life. That is to their SHAME. Leave it to the high and mighty judges to wipe out an individuals last chance at a life goal. What a shame it is to see the courts effectively take the side of So-and-So by helping him to punish Ms Evans for whatever his differences are with her. He is obviously not a compassionate person, so let that be a warning to any woman with whom he might decide to attempt to have children in the future. Things have a way of 'coming back', and perhaps this Johnston creep will get his in the end.

John, Columbus, Ohio, USA

It is easy to see why Ms Evans was so desperate to use the only option she had open to her to have children. I can also understand why the ex-boyfriend objected, although I am not sure I totally agree with him.

But the idea that anyone has a "right" to be a mother is ridiculous. In my view, it is Muiris Lyons, Ms Evans' solicitor, who is to blame for this unfortunate state of affairs. The result of convincing Ms Evans (incorrectly) that she had a legal right have the children is that this poor woman's pain has been stretched out over many months, dragged her name through the tabloids, and quite possibly was a factor in the ex-boyfriend's refusal to cooperate.

Edd Bullen, Birmingham,

The embryos themselves have no rights, human or animal, because they are not sentient and do not feel pain. The likelihood is that even if the decision had gone the other way, most of the embryos would have been destroyed anyway. What would the child have felt knowing that its father never wanted it and even fought against its conception? It's about time a decision went in favour of men, we all ready get fleeced in divorce settlements and treated like incompetent criminals in custody battles, the father is every bit as important as the mother and should have an equal say and equal rights in all decisions regarding their biological offspring.

Phil, Lancaster,

Mary from london..... "no difference to his life"??? What???? The next eighteen years of child support and seeing his child for a few hours at the weekend..... Long expensive drawn out court battles.... No, no difference at all..... At least some laws somewhere support mens rights..... And just for the record, I'm female!

Hazel, Glasgow, strathclyde

I'm sorry, but just why *should* Mr Johnston have been forced to become a father? Irrespective of whether he would have had any input or involvement in his child's upbringing, the fact is that he would not have had a say in whether a child of his was brought into the world. Too many children today are the product of women who chose, regardless of their partners' wishes, to bring a human life into the world, and who are desperately unhappy as a result - as are the other innocent parties involved. THIS is selfish and wrong, not the actions of Mr Johnston - and who could say what demands Ms Evans might make on him in the future? My ex-partner was "trapped" by a woman in this way and I saw the damage it caused. Us women seem to want it every way; well, it's about time we learned to put our "needs" second sometimes.

Although I feel sorry for Natalie Evans, I believe that having a child is NOT a right, contrary to what she believes. It's a PRIVILEGE.

Nicky Butler, Chislehurst, UK

The point is this: it did NOT happen in her womb and she is NOT pregnant. One cannot conflate the argument that if a woman is pregnant, then her partner does not have any say in whether she goes ahead with the pregnancy or not, with the argument that the man has the right to withdraw his consent before a pregnancy takes place. In UK law, a frozen embryo is not a person, and disposal of these embryos is not murder. In any case, this is quite another issue. The man in this case has the absolute right to determine if and when he becomes a father - and no woman has the right to impose fatherhood on him. As for her argument that she has lost her chance to be a mother, no - she has lost the chance to be a female biological parent. If she chose to adopt, she could still be a mother, but perhaps she doesn't understand the difference. I am only surprised that this case reached so far in the European Courts - the moral decision (as opposed to the emotional one) seems quite obvious.

TRB, London,

(Re Chris, LA) To wish someone never have children is just awful. Perhaps you ought to consider what you write, this is a constructive debate and your comments have no place.

Clare, London, UK

The fertilization of the embryos did not in any way remove Mr Johnstons RIGHT to choose when, and with whom he wants to have children.

From the beginning it was known by both parties that either one has the RIGHT to withdraw consent for the use of the embryos.

Fertilization what not a guarantee of their use.

If Miss Evens can't accept these terms, she shouldn't have signed up to them.

Cash, London,

Ms Evans may have said she'd absolve him from all responsibility but what about the psychological effects on him knowing he had a child out there? Not all men are heartless beasts who would leave the mother of their child to cope alone without a care for the child... women don't have the monopoly on emotion

Tom, London,

A lot of the comments on here, especially those from the USA, are unbelievably judgmental about this case. Who do you think you are to pass judgement on these people and comment on their morality? All you bible-thumping Christians seem to be forgetting an important precept about those without sin being the first to cast stones: are you all so perfectly without "sin" that you think you're in a position to gleefully pronounce that God's will is being done and that it all serves Nathalie Evans (and uppity women in general it seems) right?

I think this is a very tragic story for both parties who were faced with a very testing choice. I'm sure both parties think the other is in the wrong and they are in the right but either way, their position is one that few of us have faced (and hopefully ever will face) so we should think before we pass comment.

MB, Edinburgh,

So, Claudia from Atlanta, I take it you have never, in the course of your entire life, changed your mind or made a decision that impacted negatively on someone else's life? My, you must be a perfect human being.

Oh, and I suppose you live your life entirely devoid of emotion too?

Come on, admit it - you're a lawyer aren't you?

Nicky Butler, Chislehurst, UK

Funny how the Conservative Christian Americans from (I assume) the Deep South go on about the embryos' "right to life", but still support their dear George Bush while he goes about slaughtering, or facilitating the slaughter, of tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians.

The perfect example of hypocrisy.

Pete, Cov,

To Jan from Manchester,
if you consider it 'God' is already being played in the creation of the embyos, the subsequent destroying of the unused embyos which would have happened even if the treatment had gone ahead, and come to that, the survival of a woman with ovarian cancer. It's not 'playing God', it's medical intervention.

A C, Cannington, Somerset

Mmm, I wonder what the courts would say if a man forced his wife/partner/whatever to have an abortion because he had changed his mind after the deed

Sarah, Colchester,

Women can terminate pregnancies even without the consent of a present father. That in itself is already an inequality in favour of women.

Now they want to have children without the consent of the potential father, because it is their "right"? Since when was being a mother a "right"? What about the rights of the baby? Doesnt it/he/she have the right to grow up in a two-parent family?

I sympathise with Ms Evans for the fact that she cannot have her own children, but I have no sympathy for her attempt to force fatherhood on her ex.

Equality can be a bitter pill to swallow, eh?

Pete, Cov,

It's a tragic situation, but I think the right decision was made. I'm sure people of both sexes can sympathise and appreciate the heartache that this has caused Ms Evans. I suppose the best consequence might be that if she becomes a mother later in life, be it through adoption or egg donation, she will be surprised at how much love she will have for the children, even if they are not hers biologically. I'm sure they will bring her as much joy as a child genetically hers would. Being a mother is so much more than giving birth, just as being a father is so much more than fertilising an egg.

John, London,

For all of you who have written in support of Miss Evans - would you support a decision to give half the embryos to her and half to Mr Johnstone? If that is so (as they are half his) what happens if her half fail to implant? Would she then fight to have his half too, or what if he had used his and they were successful whereas hers weren't? Or more to the point, if he wanted the baby and she didn't, should she be forced to carry it for 9 months before relinquishing all parental rights to him?

Jemma, London,

The man consented to having the eggs fertilised. If this had happened in the woman's womb, he would not be allowed to tell her to abort (or not). Why should he have a say now?

Starling, Lancaster,

What a selfish woman. If she truly wants to be a mother to a child, there are thousands right now waiting for just that, who need a loving and stable home. Why not adopt? "Right to be a mother indeed"; it was her infertility that robbed her of this "right" and she was lucky to live in a country where IVF was available to her.

But the matter of the embryos is a grey area, depending on one's views on the sanctity of life. In my opinion, the fertilisation had already occurred and life created. Too late for the boyfriend to walk away. Don't go to the trouble of artificially conceiving a child if you're not sure you want it.

Amy Allen, Paris, France

To all that say Ms Evans should be allowed to carry the embryos as to not allow her to do so would be "murder" - do you actually think that all 6 would have been implanted or carried to term anyway? Clinics always over-fertilise - leading to the so-called "murder" of thousands of left-over embryos each year. I believe an unfrozen embryo has 14 days of development from conception before this "murder" has to take place by law (14 days, embryo length = 0.4mm) - perhaps by some sinister soul mistaking the petri dish as empty and popping it in dishwasher!

Anna , Birmingham, UK

What a terrible situation for all concerned.
However, I feel that the right decision was made, as they were told all along that either could withdraw consent at any time.
Why does she want a child with someone she no longer loves and who no longer loves her.
Perhaps she should consider donor eggs and sperm. Although not genetically hers, she could still carry for 9 months and give birth, after that, I thinkn she would feel so much a mother, that genetics would not seem to matter too much!

Denise, Hamburg, Germany

Being one of a long list of commentators I am sure not many will read my comment. Nor am I saying anything totally original either.....I think she should have the right to these embryos. Her boyfriend consented to using his sperm for their creation for implantation. Now he says "no" and all of her hopes of being a mother to her "own" child are crushed. Were it not for the special circumstances here (her infertility due to chemotherapy) I would agree with the boyfriend. Were she not infertile she could get sperm from a bank and carry on. However, this is the only chance she has. He can change his mind later on as many times as he wants but this is her ONLY chance at bearing her "own" child. I have to wonder if he realizes the impact his decision has on her?

Leah, Tucson, Arizona

What is Claudia from Atlanta talking about? This is not breach of contract. This is about rights and however sad, feelings are not the issue. The law cannot and should not force someone to become a parent. Natalie Evans was not pregnant and when a solution to infertility was sought, she and Mr Johnston were in a relationship. Sadly, the relationship ended and the Mr Johnston no longer wished to become the father of Ms Evans child. This is his right. If she had been pregnant then he would have had responsibilities to her and the child. The judgement was correct.

Wayne, Leeds, England

What right has anyone to declare a death sentence upon the embryos? Who dares play God here?

At least this woman is offering a chance of life - and she is not asking her ex boyfriend to be 'dad' - what rights would a sperm donater have? He should simply have the same.

Jan , Manchester, UK

Since when has being a mother become a woman's "right"?

Pete, Cov,

For those in this discussion who say that the decision to destroy these embryos is tantamount to murder, consider- if Miss Evans had won the right to be implanted with one, and had been successful in bringing it to term. She never said she had considered having 11 children. What then would have happened to the other embryos? I suspect they would have been destroyed. Result: BLOODY MURDER!
This is an issue (in fact it touches an entire raft of issues), which are so sensitive, impacting on the human experience at such a fundamental, visceral level, that logic seems to go out the window. This is a sad case, no doubt about it, but certainly doesn't constitute a reason to divorce one's self from the facts of the issue at hand.

Greg , Tours, France

It is astonishing to see how many pro-Miss Evans viewpoints included the outrageous [and emotionally unbalanced] suggestion that Mr. Johnston be forcibly emasculated in the name of "fairness"...as if he were somehow responsible for her biological/medical misfortune. Bravo for the *many* females who took the time to voice their sensible - neither masculine nor femine, but Human - opinions. As for the former group, I truly hope you *never* have children.

Chris, Los Angeles, CA

The one thing we possibly all agree upon is that this is sad for this woman. However, I am staggered that this should even be an issue. For a start the embryos are NOT hers. 'Ownership' is shared by she and her ex-partner. The judge actually did get it right this time. The boyfriend has a clear and absolute right not to have to agree to have a child with anyone he does not wish to. It is his life too. If the judge had ruled differently that would also have had some very awkward implications for abortion being a woman's right. Oops. But why would anyone want to bring yet another child into this world under such special scientifically facillitated circumstances? It is perverse that one woman's wish to have a baby could in itself be enough to override all common sense in this matter in a world where there are so many beautiful children who are without any decent parents to love and care for them. This kind of selfish nonsense is what is truely sad, not her inability to have a baby.

Cory, Wellington, New Zealand

It was a horrible decision. She should try to sue him under breach of contract. Think about it, he made a decision with her to go forward with the embyos and in effect entered into a contract with her. That is basically the same contract a man has when he agrees to have sex with a woman. That implies, if unforeseen consequences happen, he may have to support a child for 18 years because of one act of sexual intercourse. A male doesn't get to force a female to abort if she becomes pregnant after that, why then should male get to force a woman to abort the implantation of embyos?

To make this problem even worse, he gave his consent at a crucial time. If he had disagreed at that time, the woman could have sought out other fathers or sperm donors. Instead he messed up her chance for a lifetime because he wanted to go back on his contract, getting a priviledge no other man gets. It's disgusting. She should be entitled to major damages for breach of contract at the least

Claudia, Atlanta, USA

Who decides which frozen embryos will live and which ones will die?

serene, seattle,

It is rather interesting that one of the arguments used by Ms Evans lawyers was that of the embryos right to life. If the court had upheld that viewpoint it would have made abortion illegal or at least thrown its legality into question. For once I believe that the judges got it right - no man or woman has the "right" to parenthood.

Barry, Bromley, UK

Where is the X-boyfriend's compassion for this woman? Why would anyone deliberately deny someone else happiness, particularly someone they once cared for? It breaks my heart to see people act so selfishly.

gingerly, LA, CA

We feel so Pitty for Ms Evans. I don't know why British Laws are so stringent. This is going to be a murder if they are going to destroy the Embryos. Wondered why the British Lawyers & Judges have taken such a long time in deliverying the stupid decision. Mr. Johnson will regret this once in his lifetime but then the time is too short.

Rajesh, Coimbaztore, INDIA

Ah, so the embryo only matters when it is a woman's choice to make it so. Otherwise, the embryo matters not - it is merely a tool of the vicious right-wing conspiracy? The indulgence of women seems to have no limits. It's all about her wants and convenience - his rights or those of the unborn child are always a distant second.

Nick, Rotherham, Yorks

Men know that giving a woman a child is a no win situation. If she decides to split because he didn't take out the trash properly, she can leave with the child and legally attach a major percentage of his pretax salary -- then go on vacations, get a boobjob, a young boytoy and jerk around with him over visitation. Can anyone prove me wrong? The courts think women are weak.

rick, atlanta, ga

i feel for both sides of this.yes i'm a girl but i'm happy that the man won.the man doesn't have to give up his opinion because the woman can't have biological children.just because she can't have the embryos doesn't mean its all over for her.she can adopted and raise a child in the same manner. their relationship has ended but if she was allowed to have these embryos, it might bring future probelms as well.she might want child support or she could die.the child might be pushed on to the biological father.sure he did gave his sperm to produce thses embryos but that was then, back then they must had care for each other but some things happen which broke them up.now a couple of years later she asking to have them without his consent.they are as much of his as it is hers.why should anyone be forced into parenthood.there's a bunch of what ifs if he allowed her to have them. the people who think mr johnston is being cruel but he has rights too.if it was turned around she probely do the same

shelby, prescott valley,

The fertilisation have occured, which both of them consented, so I do not see any reason why Ms Evans is not allowed to carry on the process of letting the embryo grow inside her.

Ong Chan Yeh, Kuala Lumpur,

If you knock some chick up and she decides that she wants to have the child can you withdraw your consent to have the child if you do not wish to support it? Should she then be forced by law to abort or take the morning after pill? I'll wait for comments before I write what I think.

marco g, san diego, ca

I think the embryo also has its riights.

sargon, Common,

Given the chance to have a child from my own genes, I would've also fought tooth and nail. For those who say it doesn't matter, are absolutely fine with the alternatives, of which my present partner and I have been rejected three times (adoption) - I don't smoke, I don't drink, I work, I have a roof over my head. I just can't have kids. Most people take that decision for granted that they can pick and choose if or when they will be parents. For me, that decision was taken away from me. But my own personal opinion is that the moment those eggs were fertilised they became real, alive, the start of a new life. That leads on to the obvious fact that they had already become parents in the making and the end of that chance was not natural, as would probably have been the case if she miscarried. You cannot simply make the decision and go ahead with being a parent, then back out when you feel like it.

After reading this, it horrifies me to think some of you against her are natural parents!

Chris, Norwich, UK

Well now A. Colias, vulgarity rules these days. It is supported and promoted by news and the media. In the end however, holiness will win.

Me dude, Here, USA

Why are Mr. Johnston's right the only ones considered, respected and honored? Ms. Evans has a right to become a mother using her own eggs that have been fertilized. The embryos are indeed alive and thus have rights as well. What the courts did in deciding Ms. Evans future as a non-mother by killing her embryo is an abomination. There was no common sense practiced but simply an immoral act by both Mr. Johnston and the courts. Once these embryos are destroyed, Ms. Evans biological babies, mruder will have then be committed; all in the name convenience and wrong person and timing.

The day Mr. Johnston dies, he'll have to give an account of his actions. I pity him.

Suzanne, Temecula, CA

So if she is REALLY interested in parenting she will just adopt. Otherwise she will cry woe is me and be childless.

caramellaB, Salt Lake City, Utah

Single parents, bless their hearts for doing such a tough job, are what is left after a "Family" fails. It is what is available, after the optimal child-rearing environment has been broken... no matter what the cause... it is just the1/2 of the parental partnership that is left to raise the children, after one parent is no longer there, in the home.

It is NOT the ideal way to bring a child in to this world. Regardless of how wonderful the person may be. It is about the CHILDREN! ALL CHILDREN WANT A TWO-PARENT FAMILY! Where the parents are there, in their lives everyday, participating and loving, helping and caring. Not just one parent, who is often gone, having to earn the income! (Especially with no support payments.)

A tragedy it is, true. It will be a bigger tragedy if she were to intentionally deprive those babies an opportunity to a father. A father who is their, everyday in their world. Not some sperm donor.

The courts definitely made the correct call!

Dirk, Provo, Utah

I personally believe that my earlier comment was censured and was not posted because I wrote as a Christian would write -- which is to say that I credited God as the creator of human life and rejected human arrogance. Yet other posts made it through to publication, posts which include harsh remarks about one or both of the people involved, even to the point of vulgarity.

A. Colias, Carrollton, USA

I don't know about British law, but here in the states Johnston would be legally responsible for the child that resulted if one of those embryos were to be implanted. His objection is perfectly valid in my opinion, he doesn't want a child, and most definitly doesn't want a child with this woman. I think the courts' decision was the right one, Mr. Johnston shouldn't be forced to shoulder a responsibility like that without his consent.

Jason, Newport News, VA

Ladies, I know you want "No means no" to only apply to men, but guess what?: equality means just that! He said "no" and he has a right not be forced into fatherhood, just because she disagrees with God's will in this case. Oh yeah, all out there who say "It's God's will" when you disagree with a choice of abortion; well, sometimes God's will is that you not have a baby. "God work in mysterious ways", right?

Lane, Bel Air, USA, Maryland

I had three biological sons then we adopted a daughter at 14 days old.
They are all grown-up now, but through the years I found that I was forgetting that I hadn't actually given birth to her.
I can appreciate that I have had the privilege of giving birth, but there are a lot women out there who will never repeat the experience after the 1st child. Believe me, adoption was wonderful, and I am SO PROUD of my beautiful daughter and MY grandchildren.
I haven't read the ongoing story of the court cases, but I can maybe understand his reasons for refusing his permission.
I know a young guy who split up with his partner 5 years ago, very acrimoniously. No way would he want his genes fathering a baby with her. It would haunt him for the rest of his life, the dislike is so great.

Dyan, Nelson,

She can still have a child through cloning and genetic engineering. If only we hadn't banned it all!

Greg, Hungary,

I saw a comment on here that was for Ms. Evans concerning her ownership of the embryos...from a John C. in sadly, my country...the US. He seemed to be somewhat confused because... Sperm+egg=embryo. Dear John C. do you not see that she contributed half...just half? That would make the embryos...a joint effort, not a solo project. She does not have a right to them. I am glad that she didn't. She has other less selfish options and should exercise them instead. I'm wondering, not that it really matters now...why did she get them fertilized? And by someone that she had no legal ties to? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Jessica, San Diego, California/USA

I truly feel for her. (Also, as someone who has seriously considered adoption and knows the realities, those flippantly saying "just adopt an orphan" are very naive.) I also understand his stance, and none of us are truly aware of the personal situations surrounding this.

From what I can tell from the article, the law allowing either party to withdraw consent until implantation was on the books before these decisions were made. If any good comes out of this unfortunate situation, I would hope that it would be new standards of practice within IFV clinics.

Someone should have had the forethought to not only preserve fertilized eggs, but also preserve the eggs of Ms. Evans, knowing that she would be soon infertile. If that had been done, this would simply not be an issue.

I am sure that after this case, that will become standard practice in similiar situations. I am actually surprised that it was not done, as I know someone who preserved sperm before cancer treatment.

Marian A., Flint, Michigan

So much for any rights for the sperm machine. Women want the right to terminate a pregnancy, even if they initially wanted it, without any consideration for the father. Now they also want reverse rights, to have the child, without any dissent from the father allowed. I disagree with the destruction of human embryos, but women today consider equality of the sexes as having everything done their way.

Walter, Ohio, U.S..A

I don't think Mr. Johnson is a bad person, he has the right to make that decision. I just feel terrible for Ms Evens because it makes my heart sink to think she will never have her own child. Its a sad situation, and being a future mother I know I would be heartbroken if my last chance for a child was taken away from me.

Susan, buffalo, ny

Oh, please. Mr. Johnson has a right to NOT use his sperm/DNA/embryos as he sees fit. He froze them while in a relationship, with that in mind. He doesn't want a child with her, so he shouldn't have to have one, regardless of whether he is with her or not. If a woman were forced to "have a child somewhere out there" everyone would throw a fit. I am a woman, and I say hooray for men's rights! Plenty of women can't have kids, and they adopt. It's cold, but it's life--get over it. Maybe he said no because he DOES care about his future kids and who mothers them. What if this woman became ill again? Maybe this guy doesn't want to have to deal with all the "what if's". Maybe he's moved on. Doesn't matter, her illness/barren womb is not his problem, they're not married. What about HIS future? Sorry, girls, turnabout is fair play. Equal right means just that-EQUAL.

Kim, USA

PS- Mr. Johnson- you are not a "horrible" or "unpleasant" man, just because you stand up for yourself

Kim, SALT LAKE CITY, USA

Ms Evans seems like a capable mother, as it is obvious she has strong maternal feelings for even the unborn embryos. Let her have her baby.

Elli, boulder,

There are men everywhere involved in exposing young women to pregnancy risk without responsibility and this one bloke gets to stop a woman's last chance?

They made those embryos together; those tiny future babies are hers too. Let her bring her own babies into the world where she has pledged she will protect and love them.

Julia, Melbourne, Australia

As an adopted child myself, I agree with the sentiment that she has many other options open to her. Adopting a child is a good and noble thing to do. She should stop crying about her fate and if she wants a child, try to adopt one.

Of course, that may be the problem. She likely isn't fit to adopt a child or isn't in a stable enough situation to be allowed to, hence the legal fight. I don't know the exact laws in the U.K. about this, but in America, you need to be capable of providing a good home for the child. If she can't manage that, perhaps it is best that she waits until the day that she can adopt a child.

Joseph, Los Angeles, USA

Imagine this: You're engaged and your spouse has just been diagnosed with cancer. There is a 99% chance that the only way to have biological children in the future is by freezing your embryos and transplanting them later.

How many of you would say no?

I'm glad this judgement was handed down. The man will be able to get along with his life and as soon as the woman gets over herself she should be able to too.

Of course, I'm putting your religioun to the side on this one and only going by what I think is fair to both adults and all 6 embryos. I don't think a book written by men 2000 years ago should have anything to do with this scientific problem.

Rob, Honolulu, HI

The clear distinction in this case is the embryos are outside of a human body. Therefore, this creates an unnatural situation where the law governs the disagreement between Evans and Johnston. The legal system is not a biblical Solomon, passing judgement on what motivates them. The legal system has to equate their rights within the law. It's that simple.

Equality doesn't come for free.

Niall ohn Davidson, Chester, UK

I think the people that have commented that Mr Johnston is selfish to not allow his ex to carry the embyos are making the assumption that men are only good for sperm donation and CSA payments (unfortunately mirroring Gvmnt policy). The creation of these embryos was obviously something that meant much to both at the time - but say Ms Evans had not wanted to become a mother, and Mr Johnston had later found himself infertile - do you think it likely that, if the circumstances were reversed, a court would rule that the embryos could be implanted in Mr. Johnston's new partner, against the will of the biological mother? Of course not. No responsible parent would ever want their child to be brought up without them there to oversee their development - to miss out on their first smile, first step, first bike ride.

Giving away a child is not the same as letting your ex have the car you bought together. It has consequences for the rest of not only the parents' lives, but the child's too.

Anna , Birmingham, UK

Surely the child should be the main concern. Why bring a child into the world with such a background baggage of bitterness and strife? The woman seems selfish and unthinking beyond her so called 'right' (not a right actually, but rather gift of nature) for a child than for its eventual sense of wellbeing, balance and 'rightness' of existence.
I say well done to the European court, a compassionate decision has been arrived at.

Andrew, Easingwold, UK

The right decision was made. I can't believe the people on here who describe Mr Johnson as "vile" because he wants to make a decision about whether he does or does not become a parent with Ms Evans. As others have mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Mr Johnson whose last chance to become a father depended on these embryos, none of the correspondents criticising Mr Johnson now would be supporting him. The castigation of Mr Johnson is an expression of blatant sexism by those who feel that man do not deserve the same rights as women.

Robert Thompson, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Bravo! FInally and for once a Man has a reproductive right and is not served at the a legal whim. He has every right Not to be a father. Despite the protestations that she would release him from any legal parental obligations - not such privelage or right exists. A man can (and men have) be sued for support even after the childs mother allegedly agree's not to seek it.
Just deserts - these overbearing chickens have come home to roost. After all the years and years of fathers being dragged through the gauntlet, finally a glimmer of the fact that men have rights too. I am man, hear me roar. this is a Happy Day.! Oh Happy Day! Men have rights! Men have rights! Men Have reproductive Rights Too! Men can't be hijacked into being fathers! Oh happy, Happy day.

Papa Joe, San Francisco, CA

A simple phrase that is so pertinent

"It Takes two to Tango"

craneman01, Lincoln, U.K.

is America the only country that takes advantage of sperm banks?

lorrie, waterloo, iowa

This is just what can happen when you start playing around with nature. There is always a price to pay, which may or may not be worth paying. The law at least can see things through clearly and find a resolution, in this case one that matches common sense and fairness - though that does not exclude great sympathy for the lady.

Jeremy Drake, Norwich, Norfolk

Currently the law offers Mr. Johnston no protection for the "parental exemption" Ms. Evans stated she would grant him. If she chooses to rescind on the agreement it would not be worth the paper it was written on.

Mr.Johnston would never be fully exempt of obligation to the child as the child, when older. might feel otherwise about the level of involvement Mr. Johnston has in his or her life.

If Ms. Evans is so desperate to be a parent why has she spent 5 years fighting a "moral and ethical" legal battle instead of researching alternatives or adoption?

Heather Isaac, Edmonton,

I wonder how many the people demonizing Mr Johnson would be willing to have a child with a former partner. Regardless of the former partners health. How do you think your current partner would feel?

This couple have split up. They no longer wish to be a part of each others lives. They must have loved each other once but they do not anymore. Why should either one of them be forced to be a co-parent with the other. Especially when the partner who didn't want the child would have the CSA banging on their door.

This is not her only chance to have a child. She can adopt a child. Instead of instigating adoption procedures she chose to drag this through the courts. Wasting time & money that could have been spent making a home for a child with no parents.

Mark, Staffordshire, UK

I'm laughing at the hypocrisy of all those who side with Ms Evans. These same people would scream bloody murder if this woman was denied the ability to abort this mans child simply because he wanted to have it. This woman has no more right to these embryos than Mr Johnston. They both have to consent to having these embryos implanted so that they can develop into babies or it simply doesn't happen. That is the only way of giving equal weight to the rights of both parties. It's arrogantly self-centered for women to think that their 'human right' to have children should trump a mans right not to have them. This decision weighted the rights of both parties equally and said that this woman couldn't simply decide to do as she liked on her own. Men have reproductive rights too, and those rights aren't subordinate to those of women. This is a perfect example of equality between the sexes yet look how so many women are upset. Maybe some woman really want supremacy instead of equality.

Tod, Yogbeth,

A woman doesn't have to get consent from her partner to get an abortion but she does have to get consent to use one of her own embroys?

Once a man makes the decision to fertilize an egg he can't take it back.

This entire case is an outrage.

John C., St. Paul, MN, USA

Stop this madness!!!
Ms Evans has not lost the right to be a mother. There are loads of children in the UK in need of a loving home. Adoption is an option.

Selina, London, UK

I am amazed at the number of people who consider "poor Ms. Evans" and "nasty Mr. Johnson". Aren't there enough children who are missing a parent? Mr. Johnson and Ms. Evans broke up, that's a (sad) fact of life. They should be happy that no children suffer as the result. Besides, right NOW she would have given up any claim for child support, but knowing human (especially female) nature, the first time she either loses her job or another man leaves her or treats her unfairly (perceived or factually) and she will get angry and come knocking on Mr. Johnson's door. Yes, his name may not have been on the child's birth certificate, but with the notoriety of the case he could hardly have 'hidden'. I agree with those who say correctly that Ms. Evans can always adopt one of the many orphans in this world. One does not have to be Madonna or Angelina Jolie to adopt a child. So rather than CREATING another unhappy fatherless child, she can always MAKE a child HAPPY by adopting it.

P Beck, London,

What an unpleasant man! Why on earth does she want his child?
I understand that she was prepared to release him from all financial responsibilities (his only legitimate fear). Maybe someone who pulls a trick like that does not deserve to breed.

Charles, Charlottesville, USA

Hooray for some men's rights for a change. If a woman has a right to abort a fetus without the father's permission, there is a little bit of payback that he gets a say in deciding if the woman can use his sperm to get pregnant. Men usually have no rights whatsoever when it comes to parental or abortion issues. Tell the woman to go adopt like a lot of other people do.

Jason, Minneapolis,

If Mr Johnston originally gave his sperm, therefore consent, to have the eggs fertilized, why is he NOW concerned about having children with Ms Evans? He DOES have children with her. The 6 fertilized eggs are indeed his biological offspring and now he is reponsible for their murder. When she was ill, did he say "Oh, I don't know if I want children with you." NO! If he had, she could have harvested her eggs and held them for a real man to fertilize. Johnston can still go and have biological kids if he finds a woman stupid enough to trust him. Ms Evans has only this one chance to have children of her own flesh, an issue obviously VERY important to her; why else would she fight so to save her 6 babies, ready to be implanted and given breath. Why is he not being held to the original contract he entered when he gave sperm and created these lives? Solution: force him to get a vasectomy so he can't have biological children either. Then he would probably fight for the embryos for himself.

Susan, Chicago, Illinois, USA

The embryos should not be destroyed while it is possible for Natalie Evans to be successfully implanted. If Mr Johnson were to die before they are destroyed it would be open to Ms Evans to re-apply to the courts to use them. In those circumstances, it is hard to see what interest would be served by denying her or for allowing the dead Mr Johnson a veto.

Clive Sterling, Crowborough, UK

The court was right, in that it had to uphold the law. But Johnson is a nasty piece of work. Virginia is right. HE can have as many kids as he wants, but he has just removed his ex partner's ability to have kids. How vile can you get?

starling, Lancaster,

While I feel for this woman, I can't see any moral argument to force another human being to have a child against their will.

The depiction by some of Mr Johnson as cruel for simply asserting his right to determine whether and with whom he wants to have children must be deeply distressing.

Kari Anne, Houston, USA

Human Rights! The world has gone mad! So many abortions and unwanted children. Yet a woman who desperately wants her own child and sadly has this only option, is being denied by the so called financial/emotional objections of an obviously bitter ex. who can have his own offspring any time he likes. The law is crude in cases like this with no consideration of personal circumstances - and how personal does it have to get? What about Natallie's human rights. Clearly not as important as Mr. Johnston's, who doesn't have nearly as much to lose!

Ruth, Forres, Scotland

Just as it must require consent from both parents for these embryos to be implanted, it should also require consent from BOTH, for them to be destroyed. There should be no question of them being destroyed for as long as Ms Evans wishes them to be kept frozen, I am shocked to hear they are to be destroyed within 28 days. The day may still come in the future when Mr Johnson might yet change his mind.

Claire James, Eastcote, UK

I applaud Mr Johnston for not wishing to become a father of a child that he will not be raising jointly under his and the mother's loving care. Ms Evans seems to be thinking only of her own fulfilment. Mr Johnston might lose nothing by letting her do as she wishes, but he has made the right decision for the next generation. Too many children already are raised without knowing the love of both of their parents. A sad situation, but the right outcome, if only Ms Evans had seen this from the start.

Paul, Lincoln, UK

If the boot was on the other foot, and Mr Johnston was the now-infertile one, desperate for a baby, would it be in order for the court to force Ms Evans to bear his child? Hmm, thought not. The feminists would be up in arms.

Although it's a sad tale, surely this is the right decision, or a most dangerous precendent is set.

Margot, Toronto, Canada

Quite right too. She can say she will not ask for anything from her ex-boyfriend but what about the child? It is likely that it will wantt o know who its biological father is as it gets older, will find him and by suddenly appearing may cause mayhem in a stable family he has created elsewhere.
This was a case that should never have been brought and I sincerely hope that Miss Evans be liable for the costs rather than the taxpayer.

John Murphy, Lauris, France

The law is still an ass.
When this woman still had options, Mr. Johnston presented himself as the man to have her children with. Now that he is her only option he has pulled the rug from under her. The court has sided with the small-minded bully. It has given him the nod for one last turn of the screw. 30 years on and this woman will still feel the loss. It's tragic.

Ian, Barrie, Ontario

I'm somewhat curious as to how Ms. Evans developed cervical cancer. If it was caused by HPV and she was exposed to said disease by Mr. Johnston, it would be unjust to forbid her a chance to reproduce while allowing him to roam free and do as he pleases.

Brandon, Ruston, USA

The word rights is often loosely used when it comes to having a child , actually no one has a right to have a child some people can and some people can't but it is not a right .
The case was correctly judged and although it was judged on being a necessity for dual consent ,there is also the ethical issue of bringing a fatherless child into the world on purpose just to satisfy the desire (or percieved right ) of the lady to have a child .

The circumstances are not clear but it could be that the man was under duress to provide a future option for when the illness struck and he consented to IVF when he wasn;t ready , if their relationship had prospered then things could have been different . IVF throws up many happy cases and is an accepted part of life but there are always sad cases , this is one of them and neither party comes out well from it .

Guy, Hamburg, Germany

I'm all for fathers' rights, but it seems to me that he gave prior consent by going along and having his sperm fertilize her eggs. Why does he get to change his mind now?

Conversely, what would happen if he found himself infertile, and he wanted the fertilized eggs to implant in his new partner? These are sticky issues and need to be worked out in advance.

Kathleen Parr, Falmouth, ME, USA

Ms Evans is only lucky in that she is not still with this man. We shout and scream about the use of embryos yet when it is suggested some are used for the intended purpose the law says no, that the opinion of the man outweighs that of the woman. The law at all levels here is an ass - merely a blunt, clumsy instrument for an even blunter denial of this poor woman's right to have a child with her own genes.

tracey, London,

I'm astonished at the opinions of some people on here, have can you possibly think it right or ethical, that just because at one point in this man's like, most probably when he was under a great deal of pressure to make a decision that he might not have wanted to make, he should allow this woman to carry his child.

Maybe he does not want his children being brought up by this woman. In my opinion, it is abhorrent that some people are even suggesting this man be put through that. If the genetleman does not wish to have children now, that is his decision and his alone.

Ashley McDonald, Bolton, UK

surely the consent of both parents was obtained when Ms Evans and Mr Johnson agreed to the IVF trwatment in the first place.

The argument that a woman couldn't be asked to carry a child if the situation were reversed ignores the fact that a woman would have to carry the child and give birth, whereas Mr Evans life would not be disrupted by allowing Ms Evans to be a mum.

Mirowdal, Cheshire,

Common sense has prevailed. I am staggered that some people actually believe that she could force him to have a child against his will - irrespective of whether he agreed in the past. As a father myself, I actually have no sympathy for Ms Evans, whose complete selfishness makes her wholly unsuitable to be a mother - she seems to have only one consideration in mind - her own narrow desires. However, one good has come of this - men will now (hopefully) think long and hard before agreeing to this sort of thing - if you are ready for children, then you are ready to commit properly - get married.

Vaseem Akbar, London,

I have sympathy for all concerned. I dont know if the option of embyo donation has been considered. It would seem to be a solution to the problem for Ms Evans. I understand that many women feel a real need to give birth, but I would question that the need is for a genetic link.

My youngest son is adopted, but my love for, and bond with, him is no different to the feelings I have for my older children.

Richard, Surrey,

It is totally right that that either party should be able to pull out of such an agreement at any time. If this had gone the other way where the woman would have had more rights than the man then it would signal an even deeper divide between men and woman than there already is. It is unbeliveable that such a case should ever had been brought. the reality of this is that a man doe's and should have equal rights to a woman! Beggining and end of conversation with no exceptions.

gary neale, covntry, united kingdom

The law should make allowances for instances such as this where for one partner this is the only way that they could have a biological offspring. It is truely Nathallie's misfortune to have had her eggs fertilised by Mr Johnson, as he is a very selfish and unfeeling individual.

Mary, England,

The sad truth is that cancer took away Ms. Evans ability to have a biological child, not Mr. Johnson. Technology and wealth lead us down a slippery slope of moral, ethical and practical considerations. Just because one can, does not mean that one should.

In this case, technology spared Ms. Evans life, but also provided her with a false sense of hope for a biological child. I hope now that with closure, she can grieve for the hope lost and use the gift of life that was given to her.

Virginia, Baltimore, MD, USA

Ms. Evans is correct that initial consent was provided. This began an embroynic development that should not be discontinued at Mr. Johnston's whim. This would accomplish many things. If Ms. Evans were to obtain custody of fully developed infants, she would have the opportunity to nurture her own offspring. The Grand Chamber could require waiver of any right to child support. This would eliminate any "emotional burden". It would also prevent any decision-regret should the embryos be killed. If the children were fully developed into infants, it will definitely add to science and study. It is extraordinarily ironic that Mr. Johnston wishes to retain his right to "choose as and when I become a parent", a process he already initiated. The Grand Chamber needs to assess and evaluate whether or not adoption is a suitable replacement for Ms. Evans. However, the embryos' lives should continue. They have started. Patrice Bernier, USA

Patrice Bernier, Norwich, CT US

I am relived that the man doe's have equal rights after all! Totyally the rightr descision

gary neale, coventry, united kingdom

well done to the european courts. they have done the right thing in upholding the law She should stop try to make Mr Johnson feel guilty with her crocodile tears. If she want a child so much she can easily find an egg doner.

mark day, london,

I sympathize with Ms. Evans. However, this is what happens when you allow science/medicine to take over what is supposed to be a natural act. The frozen embryos are now viewed as "possessions" and because the relationship between Ms. Evans and Mr. Johnston dissolved, she now wants to negate the agreement she/they entered into. If she were allowed to exercise her "rights" as her attorneys so put it, then sometime in the future - could Mr. Johnston exercise his "rights" as father? As noted by one responder - there are so many neglected children out there. Being a mother is not necessarily about the creative process (many teenagers have children - enough said) but about the nurturing, loving, caring for another individual that makes you the "mother."

F. Knight, New York, NY

Sorry, but Johnston is a shit of the first order. Ms Evans has agreed, and I am sure this could be made legally binding, that she would not expect any help, financial or otherwise, from Johnston. They say 'Hell hath no fury............' but it's not just women - men can be similarly vicious = this nasty man Johnston.
Oh yes, I meant to say I am a man, not a woman. My heart goes out to that poor girl while that pig smirks and says sense has prevailed. (Sorry pigs, I didn't mean the animals).

Michael H, Peacehaven, UK

has the word adoption been mentioned as a solution to her problem...their's too many unwanted children in the world to be so selfish as to want one herself...sometimes life doesn't work out,so you need to change your objectives...

Barry Heath, Halifax, Canada

What the article doesn't mention is that Mr Johnson knew when he agreed to the procedure that doing so would mean that Ms Evans would not be able to conceive a child ANY OTHER WAY - if he had any doubts about the situation, he shouldn't have agreed to the procedure and left Ms Evans free to have her eggs fertilised by a willing sperm donor.

What a cruel betrayal that poor woman has had to endure, from a person she once loved enough to put the fate of her unborn children solely in his hands.

Jack, Norwich,

The relationship between Ms Evans and Mr Johnston is obviously terminated and it would appear that adoption is not an option for her.

Love is not mentioned so why is the alternative of procreating a child with an anonymous male donor not a consideration for her?

Roy Ellwood, Richmond, B.C., Canada

this was the right decision, i feel for this lady but she agreed to the terms of embryonic storage in the first place and so these terms should not be over ruled. if she wants to be a mother she can still have that chance by donor egg.

deb, nw,

I find this unbelieveably cruel.

I do not find it just.

It might be just if the man were required to have a vasectomy so that he too could never have children. -- so that the decision he has made would have the same implications for himself as it has for her.

At the very least, I hope that some day he will be sorry for what he has done , and that he will regret it for the rest of his life. Perhaps if / when he has a child of his own he will understand.

I feel deep sorrow for this woman. I hope that she can find the strength not to become bitter.

The guy who thinks this situation is far more distressing for the man than for the woman -- well, what can you say?

Maggie, Nice,

It is a shame that the judgement inevitably had to go this way.

The comments on this board are disappointingly harsh given what this woman has been through. The outcry that "men, too, have rights" is, I would suggest, faintly ridiculous. No one is suggesting that any woman should be able to grab a passing man and force him to father her children! The fiance gave his permission for these embryos to be created. It is, in my opinion, a very harsh man who denies someone he was once engaged to the chance to ever have children.

P Marshall, Sheffield, UK

I do feel for Ms Evans, but I think the court is right, both potential parents should be inagreement about this. It wouldn't be fair on the desenting parent or any child that might be brought into the world otherwise.

Susan Ingram, Barry, S Wales

In my opinion, the right decision was amde. As a man I feel that I should have equal say about parenthood given an equal amount of my genetic material is required.

Robert, Toronto, Canada

What about the fact that these embryos are already living human beings? Surely it is too late for Mr. Johnson to withdraw his consent, as these embryos, his own flesh and blood, already exist. Who in all this has asked whether or not these already created, viable human lives have the right to live? Who is seeking their opinion on this matter?
I quote from Bruce Dawe's poem 'the Wholly Innocent':
I never chose, nor gave assent/nor voted on my fate-/unseen I came, unseen I went/too early and too late... Oh you within whose godlike power /It lies to so decide/remember me when some late hour/ talk turns to genocide... I never had a name or cried/ That central cry, 'I am!'...
Why do these embryos have a right to life once they are implanted but not before? When are they allowed to be alive? Surgeons operate on unborn babies. Mothers weep over unborn babies. When are they allowed to live?

Gabrielle, Reading,

Why on earth should he be made to become a father, against his will, long after the relationship has ended and -- of course!! -- then forced to pay for the support of the child and the mother? It would amount to judicial sanction of a woman's right to steal genetic material from men.

How about if the boot were on the other foot? How about if he were infertile and insisted on his right to force a child upon his ex-girlfriend of 5 years ago?

This sort of behaviour by women is the female equivalent of rape.

john, finchley,

Plus, she can still become a mother.. Although not in a genetic sense, as mentioned.

I presume adoption of an unwanted child is still an option for her? Perhaps more emotionally rewarding than forcing someone else to become a father, bringing a child into the world who will eventually learn of his/her father's unwillingness to have him/her?

Good decision.

Barney, Rennes, France

This is a very sad case indeed. Mr Johnson (quite rightly) has the legal and moral right not to be forced into fatherhood against his wishes dispite the highly emotive argument put forward by Ms Evans.
However it does seem that at some point this became an issue of absolute principle on Mr Johnsons behalf and emotional blackmail on Ms Evans.

As a fellow male i naturally can sympathise with Mr Johnson especially at a time when our rights as equal parents are being chipped away by secret courts driven by an antiquated femminist agenda of the most vindictive nature.

But come on Mr Johnson, give this woman a chance at motherhood. Thats what a real man would do.

chris, London, England

What a tragic case. In Mr Johnston's place I'd have had a heart and shown a bit of human compassion for someone who was once part of my life. It obviously means so much to Ms Evans. It's beyond me how one person could condemn another to such misery. Most of us chaps have sown a few wild oats here and there, so what harm is done? Take a good look at yourself in the mirror next time you have a shave, Mr Johnston Look right in the eyes..... I hope you're happy with what you see.

Dave, Rampton, Notts, UK

Mr Johnson can have a child any time he wants. This was Ms Evans last chance. Since she wasn't asking anything from him, his contribution to parenthood would have been comparable with that of a sperm donor or an unwilling boyfriend. What if I donated sperm, then after the recipient got pregnant I demanded an abortion? Would such consideration be granted to me if I demanded an abortion of a girlfriend or a one night stand?

Don, Hong Kong,

He has the "right to choose" to not be a father. But, in my mind he chose to be a father when he created those embryos. It was unkind for him to change his mind after giving her this hope by creating those embryos with her. However, I can understand not wanting a child with a person you no longer want to be in your life.

It is a difficult situation and I feel for both of them.

april c, monrovia, usa

Her eggs and now....... her only eggs too while he can sperm it up still . Possibly these unborn people would change the world for the better.If he is not on the hook $$$
he should let it happen. He was ok with it at the time when the eggs were fertilized. Her only eggs remember.I can see his side too but hers is so finite while he still has options.

A Dad to be

Dad, Sheffild,

To Mary in London - if Mr Johnston gave his consent, he would be in a very difficult situation. For starters, he would almost certainly find himself obliged to give financial support to Ms Evans and the baby. He would then have to decide whether he wanted to be actively invovled in the baby's upbringing. It's very clear that, in fact, he doesn't want a child by Ms Evans so presumably would prefer not to be involved. However, that child might despise him in later life for not being involved. Ms Evans is incredibly selfish and arrogant to want to put him in such an appalling situation.

I don't know why you say Mr Johnston put Ms Evans through this. It was actually the other way round.

Carol, Derby,

Surely he was consenting to be a father when he went ahead with fertilizing the eggs in the first instance. She shouldn't be punished for him being fickle.

sophie, London,

Mr Johnston would not be becoming a father if the embryos were used, any more than a sperm donor is a baby's father. He would not even have to see the resulting children. What difference would it have made to him? He just wanted to punish Ms Evans by taking away her last chance of being a biological mother. I am sure there will be a lot of comments saying she should adopt. These will be, hypocritically, from people who have had their own children instead of adopting, demonstrating that adoption is not in fact the same as having your own child. If there is no "right to a child" this should apply to fertile men such as Mr Johnston, just as much as to infertile women. Mr Johnston is greedily hogging all the "rights" here - the effective "right" to have his own child in the future, as well as the "right" to destroy the embryos without Ms Evans' consent and even the "right" to prevent her ever becoming a biological mother. So much for women's rights.

Tina, South Wales, UK

Would you force a woman to have a child if the roles were reversed? The right decision was made today.

Ali, london, uk

Although I obviously have a great deal of sympathy for this woman and also a small amount of admiration that she really acted on what she believes, it truly would be unfair to expect Mr Johnston to father a child he has absolutely no intention of bringing into the world. Even if the child were to be born now, would it be morally right to have it subjected to all of this politics surrounding its birth?
The obvious choice for Ms Evans is to adopt, surely if her maternal feeling is so strong as to fight such a legal battle she may be strong enough to turn to bringing up a child that isnt genetically related to her?
I wish her luck in finding happines, but it definately isnt in bearing Mr Johnston's child.

Emily Fleming, Northants, UK

As sad as this situation is, the law is the law. Natallie has the option of fostering and adoption. This woman is only interested in having a child that is her own flesh and blood and at no point has she mentioned adoption or fostering. It is left to her ex partner, Mr Johnston to remind the world that these are options they openly discussed should IVF not work. A child is a child regardless of whether is shares its parents DNA. There are hundreds if not thousands of babies & children screaming out for a good home. I know and speak from experience as i have a child which is not biologically mine and I love it as if it was biologically mine.

Stewart, London, England

Relief at common sense and well considered legal principle prevailing. There would have been no logical basis to permit Ms Evans the choice she so desperately wanted. The decision must remain a decision requiring the consent of both parties up until implantation as a logical and sensible parallel to natural conception. The emotional and financial burdens that pertain to having a child cannot be imposed upon someone without their consent. Ms Evans' behaviour has been a ridiculous selfish and inappropriate waste of legal and public resources and time. This decision also raises awareness of the importance of the welfare of any future child. A mother who so desperately wishes to provide nurture and love would surely not have wanted to bring up a child within such a storm of fury, hatred and anger? and what Ms Evans' comments 'and that I will never become a mother ' demonstrate her lack of true understanding of motherhood. What of adoption? There are many children desperate for a mother!

Romanna Dada, London,

I can't see any logical or moral argument in favour of Ms Evans being allowed to use the embryos. To have children, the consent of both parents is needed. For her to claim otherwise is depriving Mr Johnson's of his right to decide whether he wishes to become a father, which would be madness. This whole situation must be far more distressing for him than for her.

Lucho, Edinburgh, uk

This decision is undoubtedly correct in law, but what kind of person is Mr Johnson that he is prepared to put her through this? Allowing the implantation would make very little difference to his life and all the difference in the world to hers. He presumably once loved her; can't he find it in his heart to show some compassion now?

Mary, London,

It is absurd that this had to go to the highest court in the EU to confirm that men, too, have rights. The right to say 'no' being one of them.

clive, surrey,

very strange: you need the agreement of the man to have his children! where are women s lib defenders?

mark, alicante, spain

Whilst I feel for this woman, she has no right to use these embryos unless Mr Johnston gives his full consent.

I would hope that Ms Evans realises she has no right to father a child he does not want and not take this to the grand chamber, however, should she do this I hope they have the sense to go the same way as all previous courts.

Ashley McDonald, Bolton, UK