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?
Pamela Laufer‐Ukeles (2026) studied this question.