(marriage or parenthood) should not be enforced against individuals who subsequently reconsider their decisions.” Id. at 1059. Disputes regarding the disposition of reproductive biological material can arise in a rich variety of contexts and circumstances. In this opinion we address and decide only the case before us involving an attempt to enforce an alleged agreement to use embryos to create a child. Two fundamental rights of constitutional dimension are the right to procreate and the right not to procreate. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53, 93 S.Ct. 705, 726, 35 L.Ed.2d 147, 176-77 (1973); see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 515-16 (1965) (<HOLDING>); see also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745,
recognizing falselight invasion of privacy holding that statute outlawing use of contraceptive devices was an unlawful invasion of the privacy of marital relationship holding that a claim for falselight invasion of privacy  requires the pleading of special damages holding that a connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy recognizing a privacy interest in the intimacies of the marital relationship