There is much sympathy for the personal tragedies endured by Natalie Evans and Lorraine Hadley. After the break up of their relationships, a judge decided this week neither will be able to save their frozen embryos from being destroyed. For both women it probably ends the chance of having children again. Where science and the law have helped countless childless couples have children, here two women's desire to become parents remains unsated. Most agree the judge, Mr Justice Wall, made the correct decision - adhering to the letter of the law. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is clear: there has to be consent of both parents to use the embryos. But there is a question whether the outcome feels morally right. After all, if the women had fallen pregnant naturally, and then split up with their partners, the men would have no say over whether or not they could have their babies.

Leaving aside how a child born of a courtroom decision would feel, the verdict does leave a taste of injustice in the public's mouth. Baroness Warnock, who chaired the inquiry which led to the 1990 act, now says the law is "hard on women". The unresolved tension is whether we are dealing with a flaw in human nature or the law. If two men had wanted to implant frozen embryos in new partners and their former wives or girlfriends objected, it is hard to see them garnering as much understanding. Women carry the physical burden of pregnancy and there is a reasonable argument that they should be able to exercise more control than their male partners in fertility treatment. This would require the law to accept that the urge to have a child trumps the right to vary consent. Changing the 1990 act would also require redrawing the boundaries of parental duty. Even if fathers agree to pre-natal pacts absolving them of responsibility for their children, these are rendered invalid by the law which says they are financially liable.

Scientific breakthroughs might make such changes meaningless. For example, if unfertilised eggs could be frozen as successfully as embryos then this week's case might never have happened. The two women could then have stored their eggs as an insurance policy should their relationships falter. Parliament is the place to debate whether the social norms that informed the political process have changed or whether clinical advances have overtaken the law. MPs have called for the act to be updated. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is also reexamining its remit. A custody battle over embryos is more evidence that a review of the act is long overdue.