Dead single man has right to reproduce?

Question

I read this story this morning in the Chicago Tribune. It's about a dead Israeli soldier whose family won the right to inseminate a woman the man never knew with his frozen sperm, simply because the man "loved children". The man's mother said her son came to her in a vision twice about fathering children. The link is below:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701290159jan29,1,7098536.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
I guess my specific questions are:
• How does the mother have the right to choose who her dead son's sperm is impregnated in, and why does she have that right at all?
• Even though the Israeli courts say this is "a single case", will this not be used as precedent in other similar cases?
• Do deceased people have the same rights as the living simply through their family ties?
• Isn't this activity akin to playing God?
Would like all opinions- serious answers, please.

Answer 1

Wow, I didn't even know that sort of thing could be declared in a will!

Well, it does make sense and I don't think it's overly controversial because the soldier made the decision for it to happen while he was alive (as well as the other Israeli and American troops who had such a clause stated in their wills). It's almost like donating your body to medicine or to science in that you make the decision to preserve parts of your body when you're alive and they get used after you pass away.

The only difference is that here, there's a future psychological concern - the child will never know his real father although his grandparents may sit him down and talk about who the father was.

Honestly though, I think this is something that both pro-life AND pro-choice crusaders can agree about. On one side, you have the legal proponents who want people to have the chance to make an impact even in death. On the other side, you have the religious proponents who say that God is being given the benefit of the doubt since the potential to procure life is being preserved.

Win-win situation baby. Nothing better.

Oh, and on a side note, how'd you get those bullets in the question? They look WAY better than dashes.

Answer 2

quicker or later we would ought to reduce the kind of youngsters we've, there is little question about it. in the present day it takes a million 3 hundred and sixty 5 days and six months to modify the supplies we use in only a three hundred and sixty 5 days. Which only would not artwork. In 1960 we had about 3 billion people on earth. immediately we've about 7.5 billion. on the present fee of childbirth, through the three hundred and sixty 5 days 2100 we would have 40 billion people on earth. some thing only must be achieved and it should not be prevalent. I save in ideas gazing a software those days which reported that if all of us lived an American wide-spread of life-type then our planet ought to easily help 3 billion people. If all of us lived as a lot as uk criteria it ought to help 5 billion and if all of us lived the same criteria as India and Pakistan we may be able to help 12 billion. How can we help a attainable 40billion? even if people like it or no longer, households are going to must be restricted to 2 or maybe one new child in accordance to couple for some destiny years. As for relatives allowance, you go with little ones you help them.