It should already be noted that there was a dispute between the parties as to the question of whether, prior to the fertilization of the three eggs extracted from the appellant, the parties understood that there was a real risk that it would not be possible to extract additional eggs from the appellant, so that fertilization in the respondent's sperm binds and depends, absolutely, on the appellant's genetic parentage to the respondent's consent that the fertilized eggs will be used. I will return to this dispute later.
However, there is no dispute, and in my view there can be no dispute, that already at this date, i.e., prior to the fertilization of the three eggs extracted from the appellant - the respondent's opinion was based on the insight that if the day came when he would be asked to give his consent to the use of the fertilized eggs, there was, at least a reasonable chance, that he would refuse. It should be noted that this conclusion is not inferred from a judicial determination that is the result of the respondent's interrogation and probing into the depths of his soul. but from the respondent's own mouth. Thus, in the affidavit of the main witness that he submitted to the Family Court, the respondent stated that:
"It can definitely be said that the moment I pumped my sperm [...] There was the moment when our relationship was undermined. I felt embarrassed, humiliated and exploited. In my mind's eye, I saw myself associating myself in those unpleasant moments as atonement being milked with a coarse hand. How do you get out of it now? I asked myself. I shared my difficult feelings with my mother that day. She reassured me and her that without my consent [the appellant] would not be able to make use of the fertilized eggs in my sperm in any case, so I still have the possibility of regretting my hasty consent to fertilize [the appellant's] eggs with my sperm" (ibid., at para. 16; Emphasis added - 10:20).
From the aforesaid it appears that the respondent testifies that he was going to deliver his sperm to the hospital for the purpose of fertilizing the appellant's eggs, he felt that the marital relationship with the appellant had been "undermined". Moreover, at that time he already wishes to find an escape route from the situation, in which he donates his sperm to fertilize the appellant's eggs ("...How to get out of it now"). In view of his aforementioned feelings (which he describes as: "Hard"), the respondent consulted with his mother, who succeeded in "calming" him by noting that without his consent the appellant would not be able to make use of the fertilized eggs; And the respondent was indeed "calmed" by realizing that "...I still have the possibility of regretting My hasty agreement to fertilize [the appellant's] eggs with my sperm" (emphasis added - 10:20).