Family‐making with the gametes of the deceased

Abstract This article discusses post humous reproduction (PHR), beginning with the Israeli context and the narrow circumstances in which family members may desire to bring to life offspring of deceased kin. However, I argue that the lessons and implications of PHR reach well beyond this narrow context. First, Israel is not that unique and PHR is part of a shift in reproduction towards control and design of offspring. Second, this relatively narrow context provides broader lessons about defining parenthood, whose interests matter in family law, and the centrality of children's rights and interests. I argue that PHR is not an inquiry into rights—as there is no individual family member who retains rights to the sperm of the deceased—but an inquiry into policymaking. Instead of focusing on competing rights, the questions that frame the discussion should be: What kinds of families should society promote? How can children's interests be best protected? Can such interests be promoted through allowing PHR? Instead, the questions that frame the discussion should be: What kinds of families should society promote? How can children's interests be best protected? Can children's interests be promoted through allowing PHR?

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Family Court Review
Published
2026-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.70071
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Family‐making with the gametes of the deceased

Pamela Laufer‐Ukeles
Family Court Review
Reproductive Health and Technologies
article

Family‐making with the gametes of the deceased

Pamela Laufer‐Ukeles
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article discusses post humous reproduction (PHR), beginning with the Israeli context and the narrow circumstances in which family members may desire to bring to life offspring of deceased kin. However, I argue that the lessons and implications of PHR reach well beyond this narrow context. First, Israel is not that unique and PHR is part of a shift in reproduction towards control and design of offspring. Second, this relatively narrow context provides broader lessons about defining parenthood, whose interests matter in family law, and the centrality of children's rights and interests. I argue that PHR is not an inquiry into rights—as there is no individual family member who retains rights to the sperm of the deceased—but an inquiry into policymaking. Instead of focusing on competing rights, the questions that frame the discussion should be: What kinds of families should society promote? How can children's interests be best protected? Can such interests be promoted through allowing PHR? Instead, the questions that frame the discussion should be: What kinds of families should society promote? How can children's interests be best protected? Can children's interests be promoted through allowing PHR?

Family Court Review
Roche (Israel) (IL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Reproductive Health and Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Family‐making with the gametes of the deceased — Pamela Laufer‐Ukeles · Family Court Review (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS