Question

summarise:

The applicant in the AB case was an infertile woman who intended to become a mother through a surrogacy arrangement. However, given that she could not contribute her own eggs for the conception of the surrogate child, she was legally banned from using surrogacy. The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the owngametes requirement in court. She argued that the owngametes requirement infringed on several of her constitutional rights, including her reproductive rights. The Minister of Social Development, who is the cabinet-level official responsible for administrating the impugned statute, opposed the application, relying on the child welfare principle. The Minister argued that it is in the best interests of children that they should know their genetic origins.

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

In the AB case, an infertile woman sought to become a mother through surrogacy but was prevented by a legal requirement to use her own eggs. She challenged this requirement in court, arguing that it infringed on her constitutional rights, including her reproductive rights. The Minister of Social Development opposed the application, citing the child welfare principle that children should know their genetic origins.