Although it seems likely the embryos will now be destroyed, Mr Justice Wall, the judge, granted a "stay" of 28 days to ensure that the appeal process was exhausted for Natallie Evans and Lorraine Hadley.
Ms Evans, from Trowbridge, Wiltshire, met her former partner, Howard Johnston, in 1999. They lived together until last year, when he ended the relationship.
She claims that Mr Johnston led her to believe that he would never stop her using the embryos as he knew how important having a child was to her.
Mrs Hadley, of Sandwell, West Midlands, was married to Wayne until he left her in 2000. When they separated, Mr Hadley agreed the embryos should remain in storage, but later changed his mind.
Both women must now decide whether to continue their legal action at the Court of Appeal.
However, the varying views of those who have joined the argument may force the government to take a fresh look at the 13-year-old Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
Professor Robert Black, chair of Scots law at
Edinburgh University, said: "Moral and ethical problems are not a matter for
judges. This is for someone else ñ in particular those elected to
parliament."
Although at this stage yesterday's ruling was not
binding on the Scottish courts, he had no doubt that had a similar case been
brought before a Scottish judge he would have reached the same conclusion.
The law was clear, both parties had to give their consent to treatment and
the continued storage of an embryo.
Asked about where a father's rights ended ñ for
example if he changed his mind a week after the embryo had been implanted ñ
he said: "Then it would be too late. Just as is the case for a father who
did not want a child following a one night stand, he could not force an
abortion.
"However, it would not be too late for the woman.
If for example a pregnant woman decided that her relationship had broken
down and didn't want to carry on with the pregnancy, as long as she remains
within the rules she can have a termination."
Dr Michael Wilks, chairman of the BMA ethics
committee, said the right decision had been taken. "Consent was given on the
basis that it could be withdrawn or varied at any time up until the embryos
were used in treatment. The principle of valid consent is an important one
that must be upheld."
Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, called on the women to carry on with their legal battle. "We are
deeply saddened by this verdict," she said.
Her organisation was particularly concerned over
the rights of the embryo, which did not form any part of yesterday's
judgment.
"It is simply not acceptable for the fathers in
question to refuse to allow the implantation of these tiny human lives. The
men in question gave their free consent at the time of the conception of the
embryos, and should now accept the full responsibility of that decision."
Dr Calum Mackellar, director of research with the
Scottish Council on Human Bioethics ñ an independent body composed of among
others physicians, lawyers, and psychologists ñ said: "Though I have a lot
of sympathy for the two women, these embryos should not have existed in the
first place. They should only have been created once a loving environment
could be secured for their development."
Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Roman Catholic
Church in Scotland, said: "We predicted situations like this would happen,
but no-one ñ doctors involved in IVF treatment or politicians ñ listened to
what we had to say. This is likely to snowball out of hand with other
similar cases being brought to the courts."