All in all, this isn't your bog-standard civil action where money or animosity have compelled citizens to seek recourse in the law. This is big cheese stuff, possibly too big for the August forum in which it is being thrashed out.

We know it now as the embryo case. An estranged couple are disputing the fate of three frozen embryos created in 2002 when another three were implanted in the woman's uterus, resulting in the birth of a daughter. The husband wants the remaining embryos left alone. She wants them implanted in her uterus with the view to having a child. Last week, the case mushroomed out from being a private and painful dispute into a question that has baffled some of the most gifted minds the planet has accommodated. When does life begin?

On Tuesday, Judge Brian McGovern ruled that a consent signed by the father, Thomas Roche, at the time of the initial IVF treatment in January 2002 did not amount to consent to implant the frozen embryos at a future date. So the case moved on. Mary Roche contends that the embryos are entitled to constitutional protection under the 1983 amendment. The crux is whether or not the embryos constitute "the unborn".

Her case is that unborn life begins at the fertilisation that creates the embryo. His is that it doesn't begin until after implantation in the woman's uterus. If the judge rules in her favour, the next matter is whether the embryos are to be protected by implantation, despite this being against her estranged husband's wishes.

On Thursday, the first expert witness appeared for Mary Roche. Dr James Clinch is a former master of the Coombe, and a highly experienced gynaecologist. Disappointingly, he didn't have a definite answer that might make the front page.

"Who knows when life starts?" he asked rhetorically. "Nobody does. Nobody in this courtroom does unless they have a halo."

Dr Clinch added that if in doubt, a doctor must come down on the side of life. "An embryo has all the genetic material to make a human being, " he said, nailing his colours to the mast. "I can't find a better explanation of when life begins than fertilisation."

At a later stage, he mused over the difficulties of managing the end of life and how much more problematic that was. Then, under cross examination by Tom Roche's counsel John Rogers, the doc went all existential, wondering whether any of us were alive.

"I'm sure if Sam Beckett, Mr Beckett, was here, he might persuade us all we don't exist."

Observing the witness from the well of Court 15 in the Four Courts were the couple at the centre of the case. Mary Roche sat at the back with a friend. She is now 41, and must wonder about the slow grind of justice's wheel. When, rather than if, this matter goes to the Supreme Court, it will require further learned consideration. It could be a year before the final outcome, and if the ultimate ruling is in her favour, she will have lost 12 precious months.

Thomas Roche sat a few rows behind the senior counsel. Another year of this means further suspension of his new life, further worry as to whether he will ultimately have to provide emotional and financial comfort to future children he doesn't want.

When Rogers finished his cross-examination, Donal O'Donnell rose to address his questions to the doctor. O'Donnell is one of two senior counsel representing the Attorney General at the hearing. While the AG is in attendance as a notice party, he does have a position at odds with both the other sides in the dispute. The AG does not want the judge to rule on the beginning of life unless absolutely necessary.

Effectively, the AG doesn't want "the unborn" defined by the court. This is rich, considering the government, and its predecessors since 1983, have refused to define "the unborn", despite backing the amendment that inserted it in the constitution.

In 1983 both main parties supported the referendum for short-term electoral gain. According to a report in Magillmagazine from the time, Seamus Brennan addressed a meeting on the issue by supporting the amendment and admitting that "no doubt, the technicalities will be fought for many years by the lawyers and medical people, but we shouldn't get bogged down in them."

Twenty three years later the bog is still sucking at ankles. But this time, instead of promoting the notion of the unborn in the constitution, the government wants it thrust into the future for the same short-term electoral purposes. If the pro-life campaign is awoken in the next 12 months, there may be hell to pay at the polls.

Meanwhile, back in Court 15, the second expert witness was Professor Martin Kliens. He is a cell and molecular microbiologist who is also of the opinion that life begins at the fertilisation of the embryo. Cross-examining, Rogers put it to the witness that "this case is a defining and profound moment and you're seeking to influence it with your evidence?" The prof said he had a duty to tell it like he saw it, that embryos do represent humans, and there is a human-rights issue at stake.

Rogers continued to challenge the witness' assertions. He suggested that life began at the primitive streak stage, when an implanted embryo develops a nervous system, over two weeks after fertilisation.

"For moral purposes the correct approach is that there is not an individual until after the primitive streak phase, " Rogers said. Professor Kliens disagreed.

As if the judge didn't have enough people telling him about the origins of life, Diarmuid Martin began tapping at the window of Court 15 with his crozier. The Archbishop of Dublin told a summer school gabfest that he was surprised that only a judge would make a decision on the constitutional significance of the embryo. He called for a wider debate on the issue, which must have sent Bertie Ahern scurrying further under his desk.

The judge in question, Brian McGovern, was appointed to the High Court bench two months ago. His stewardship of the case is impressive in his eye for detail pertaining to records and sequencing. Prior to his appointment, his main speciality of practice was maritime work, an area of interest he shares with the fisherman Jesus Christ, who is regarded in some quarters as the philosopher king in this area. Apart from that tenuous connection, it's difficult to see how he or any other judge could bring a unique perspective to that which has eluded so many.

On Friday, the court was given sight of what happens with IVF in a grown-up country like Italy. Dr Eleanora Porcu is assistant professor of reproductive medicine in Bologna University, where she has pioneered a way to freeze eggs which can be fertilised at a later date.

The method was developed in response to legislation that permits only the fertilisation of three eggs during treatment, in order to avoid wastage of embryos. Eggs can be frozen under the law, but embryos cannot. The law is designed to cater for IVF treatment while at the same time treating the concept of embryos with respect by limiting availability and banning freezing. By contrast, there is not one scrap of legislation governing the whole area in this country, from registering clinics, to dealing with excess embryos.

Dr Porcu was asked whether, in her opinion, the embryo constituted an individual prior to implantation. "I don't know if the embryo has a soul or any religious need for respect, " she told the court. "There is no scientist that can say what exactly an embryo is. There is deep doubt around the true nature of it."

Thomas Roche's side will present their own expert witness next week. They can also find support in the recommendations of the Commission of Assisted Human Reproduction, which after exhaustive hearings, recommended that legal protection be afforded to the embryo only after implantation. The primal nature of the matter, and its universal application, ensures there are enough experts to tell you exactly what you want to hear, no matter what side you are on. In this regard, the job of the AG's counsel is easiest. Sowing doubt about the positions of each side can't be difficult.

It may be that the judge will be able to find resolution without answering the big question. The parcel will then be handed onto the judges of the Supreme Court. And Bertie must be hoping that their long thoughts will take them all the way to next summer, safely on the far side of an election. Meanwhile, the couple at the centre of the case must live through the spectre of their private dispute being used as a test vehicle for the torturous issue at hand.