> This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation for three key reasons: the woman wishing to be pregnant has been denied her chance of motherhood, the embryos have been destroyed and a considerable amount of money has been wasted.

This whole argument shocked me. I don't know if the author follows a logical fallacy, or something else is at play, but first of all, I fail to recognize how an embryo would be part of your own body. Secondly, I really have issues following her argumentation that consent from her then-partner isn't needed to transfer and make use of the embryos.

The article then goes on to argue that very position, which seems to be a bit out of place. I don't really follow the arguments that:

> Biologically, a man’s role is limited to the act of fertilisation and from that moment onwards, the woman bears the burden of gestation through to labour and child birth. Conferring ownership of the embryo to the woman could go some way to address this imbalance.

Given that for IVF, a woman's contribution to an embryo is exactly the same as a man's (one gamete), and the burden of gestation hasn't taken place.