Just as there are moral and ethical implication in permitting the widow to use a sperm deposit for AIH, so are there moral and ethical implications in denying her this privilege. What is the rationale behind denying a widow access to that which would only be discarded? Suppose the sperm, rather than be discarded, were to be designated that of an unknown donor to be used in AID? If unmarred women have the right to procreate even using known donor sperm, what is the reason for prohibiting a woman to choose to be inseminated with the sperm of a man who was once her legal husband? Should not the widow, who knew her husband's wishes and had presumably considered the disadvantages of posthumous parenting have a role in making the decision to create a child? Are there really any legal or public policy reasons that a vial of semen from a man who pays for it storage should not be considered part of his personal property to be made available to his heirs? These and other considerations must be fully explored by legislators before a case such as Parpalaix arises in the United States.
E. Donald Shapiro & Benedene Sonnenblick, Widow and the Sperm: The Law of Post-Mortem Insemination, 1 J.L. & Health 229 (1985-1987)