John, I agree with you that a life is a life, even at conception. Do you remember that Pope John Paul II was against all forms of assisted reproduction? The situation that you describe above was but one of his many reasons. I read what he said about it, and he had clearly predicted many of these moral quandaries. I don't agree with him, by the way.
But my point is that once you have the ability to create these embryos outside the womb, these situations will arise. I feel very strongly that this woman does not have the right to force this man to become a father. In my opinion she should be held to the document she signed. She could have chosen to freeze her unfertilized eggs, and she would have preserved her "right" to procreate.
You could argue that disposing of these frozen embryos will be murder, and I will probably agree with you, but I will still argue that doing it is the right thing.

I don't understand. Can you explain the resentment?

This is an interesting case. +1

Certainly, the judge is implying this is a potential and not an actual life. Here's why.

If it was a child and the contract said that the child would be destroyed in the event of a divorce, we would deem the contract null and void. The life of the child is incontrovertibly his own, though the parent may dictate much of the child's proper action to a certain age.