A woman sought to have a child with her husband, but before they could begin to plan a family, he was diagnosed with cancer. He donated sperm while recovering, but went into relapse and died. Prior to his decease, he stated in writing his desire that the sperm should be used for procreation, but the sperm bank now intends to destroy the cells, as a legal prohibition exists on the use of deposits from a dead donor. Frankly, I feel it would be more morally and ethically sound to support the potential creation of life, rather than engage in a process that would result in its willful obstruction.
Of course, the extended families of both husband and wife may have reservations about the process, but ultimately the wishes of the couple should take precedence. More pressing, perhaps, might be the impact on the child of knowing it was deliberately brought into existence without the support of a father. The nuclear family would be the ideal situation out of all possible circumstances, but surrogacy and fathering of children by gay men for lesbian couples already demonstrate that the traditional parenting model doesn't suit all potential situations.