Question

paraphrase:

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]

The AB case involved a woman unable to conceive naturally who wanted to become a mother through surrogacy. However, she was prohibited from using surrogacy because she could not provide her own eggs. The woman contested the legality of the requirement to use one's own gametes in court, arguing that it violated her constitutional rights, including reproductive rights. The Minister of Social Development, responsible for enforcing the law in question, opposed the woman's case, citing the principle of child welfare as the reason why children should know their genetic heritage.