The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday morning on whether to allow a woman to discard a frozen embryo, created with her ex-husband's sperm, now that the couple has divorced.

The former couple shares a young daughter. But in Bilbao v. Goodwin, the state's high court heard from Jessica Bilbao's attorney, who maintained the parties signed an agreement to discard a remaining embryo if the two divorced. It also heard from Timothy Goodwin's counsel, who repeatedly told the judges that the embryo should have legal and protected rights.

“The father indicated he signed the contract and would discard the embryo, but changed his mind after the birth of his daughter, Isabella,” Brookfield solo practitioner Joseph Secola told the justices that heard the case. Secola, representing Goodwin, said his client changed his mind about the contract after his daughter was born through in vitro fertilization. He said Goodwin has since decided he'd like another couple to adopt the embryo.

But Bilbao has maintained she doesn't want the embryo to be with strangers, and wants the contract upheld.

The couple married in 2011 and decided to have a child through in vitro fertilization. Their daughter was born in 2013, and the parents signed an agreement with the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services P.C. to store another frozen embryo. That agreement provided for unused embryos to be discarded according to ethical guidelines, if the pair divorced. The then-spouses underwent the process to fertilize Bilbao's eggs with Goodwin's sperm, and then store the resulting embryo cryogenically.

The couple divorced in 2016, and couldn't agree on the disposition of the frozen embryo. A lower court ruled in favor of the ex-wife, hinging much of its ruling on a 1992 Tennessee case, Davis v. Davis. The court in Davis reasoned that the person seeking to destroy the embryos should prevail, so long as the other party had a reasonable possibility of achieving parenthood by other means.

The case has garnered the attention of several pro-life organizations, who wrote “friend of the court” briefs for Goodwin.

But Bilbao's attorney, Scott Garosshen of Hartford's Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque, said the signed contract should stand.

During his 30 minutes of oral arguments, Garosshen told the justices that the former spouses had “made a clear choice” when they entered into a legally binding agreement.

“The contract language is clear,” he said.

Garosshen also said the couple should “honor the choices” they made. Several times during oral arguments, the justices noted that the couple entered into the contract voluntarily, willingly and without duress.

Another issue: How to categorize the frozen embryo.

The lower court said the embryo could be deemed as property, but Secola said he believes it is a human organism who should be protected.

“Will we err on the side of life or death,” he told the justices. “That's the issue here.”

Garosshen disagreed.

“There is an inadequate factual record to be making any kind of determination about when a cellular organism becomes a legal person,” he told the justices. “That factual record was not developed by the parties at trial.”

Garosshen also evoked legal precedent, pointing to cases where courts determined an embryo is not the equivalent of a legal person.

The Connecticut Supreme Court is not expected to issue a ruling on the case for at least several months.