The High Court has reserved judgment on the action in which a woman is seeking to have three embryos, now in frozen storage in a Dublin fertility clinic, returned to her with a view to achieving another pregnancy.
Her estranged husband is opposed to the return of the embryos and says he wants no more children with his wife.
After legal submissions concluded yesterday in the landmark case, Mr Justice Brian McGovern said he was reserving judgment and hoped to reach a decision "as soon as possible".
Eight days of evidence were given by scientists and medical practitioners in relation to the fate of the three embryos in the SIMS fertility clinic in Rathgar, Dublin.
The 41-year-old mother of two is seeking an order preventing the destruction of the embryos. She wishes to have them returned to her and implanted with a view to becoming pregnant.
The embryos were created during fertility treatment undertaken by her and her 44-year-old estranged husband, as a result of which one child was born. The second child was born naturally some years earlier.
Inge Clissman SC, for the woman, closing yesterday, said Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, inserted in 1983 after a referendum, requires the State to vindicate the right to life of the "unborn" with "due regard" to the right to life of the mother. The unborn includes the embryo, she said.
Article 40.3.3. gives "a wide and complete protection to the unborn" and was more than something to "copperfasten the ban on abortion", she argued. There was no question that the results of IVF treatment could be excluded from the interpretation of that amendment.
Controversy was caused by the amendment of the Constitution in 1983 and there were "very wide-reaching effects" as a result of its adoption, Ms Clissman said.
One direct consequence was the fact that a pregnant woman could be injuncted and prevented from travelling outside the State for an abortion. That became apparent as a result of the X case. "That had not been foreseen in 1983 yet that was the effect."
Lawyers for the State and the woman's husband have argued that the constitutional protection for the unborn as set out in Article 40.3.3 does not extend to pre-fertilised embryos not in the reproductive system. The State has also urged the judge not to make a finding on the critical issue of when life begins.