264). To the contrary, the Court observes that expert witness Zegers-Hochschild emphasized that “[t]he process that generates human life includes embryonic death as part of a natural and necessary process. Of every 10 embryos spontaneously generated in the human species, no more than 2 to 3 are able to survive natural selection and be born as a person. The remaining 7 or 8 embryos die in the female genital tract, generally without the parents’ knowledge.” 484 311. Bearing in mind the above, the Court finds it disproportionate to aspire to an absolute protection of the embryo in relation to a risk that is common and even inherent in processes where the IVF technique has not been used. The Court shares the opinion of expert witness Zegers-Hochschild that “[f]rom a biomedical perspective, it is essential to differentiate the meaning of protecting the right to life from the meaning of ensuring the right to life of cellular structures that are regulated by mathematics and biology, which transcend any social or legal regulation. The institutions responsible for [assisted reproduction techniques] should provide the cellular structures (gametes and embryos) with the optimum conditions offered by medical and scientific knowledge so that potentiality of being a person can be expressed at birth […].” The Court reiterates that, precisely, one of the purposes of IVF is to contribute to the creation of life (supra para. 66). 312. The Court also observes that Costa Rica permits artificial insemination techniques even though the use of such techniques does not guarantee that each egg will result in a pregnancy, thus entailing the possible loss of embryos. The decision to become pregnant, even by natural fertilization may also be preceded by a conscious act that takes measures to increase the probability of the egg being fertilized. According to the State’s final arguments: Artificial insemination is one of the treatments offered by the Costa Rican Social Security Institute. At times, as a result of hormone treatment and as an individual response, patients may present greater stimulation of the ovaries than expected; consequently, when this follicle production is 6 or more in both ovaries, the cycle is annulled. 485 313. In brief, embryonic loss exists in both natural pregnancy and in techniques such as artificial insemination. The Court observes that scientific debate exists about the differences between the type of embryonic losses that occur in these processes and their reasons. But the analysis made above allows the Court to conclude that, taking into account the embryonic losses that occur in a natural pregnancy and in other reproduction techniques 484 Opinion provided by expert witness Zegers-Hochschild at the public hearing held in this case. He explained that “[t]he results of ART vary significantly according to the age of the woman and the number of embryos transferred and, in some cases, to the severity of the condition that gave rise to the disease. […] The proportion of chromosomally abnormal eggs is very high in the human species. This means that a large percentage of fertilized eggs do not advance in embryonic development and a high proportion of transferred embryos do not implant and do not result in a pregnancy. […] The analysis of these data reveals that […] the technique of IVF or [intracytoplasmic sperm injection] ICSI does not generate embryos of a lesser biological value than those generated spontaneously in a woman’s body, [and] that embryonic death as part of a medical treatment, does not occur as a direct result of the technique, but as the result of the poor quality of the oocyte and embryo that are natural to both women and men. In women with healthy eggs, the possibility of conceiving from one embryo generated in vitro is no different from one generated spontaneously. In itself, the IVF/ICSI does not affect the possibility of implantation and conception. Hence, the lower rates of pregnancy in women with IVF are not due to the interference of the technique; but rather they are mainly the result of the underlying disease that determines a lower reproductive performance. […] The process that creates human life includes embryonic death as part of a natural and necessary process. Of every 10 embryos generated spontaneously in the human species, no more than 2 to 3 are able to survive natural selection and to be born as a person. The remaining 7 or 8 embryos die in the female genital tract, generally without the parent’s knowledge. The question that must be answered is whether the ART, such as IVF or ICSI contribute to the death of embryos because they have been fertilized outside a woman’s body and then transferred to her. The answer to this question is that neither IVF or ICSI affect the possibility of survival of embryos and, evidently, do not kill them.” 485 The State’s final written arguments (merits report, volume XI , folio 5314).