The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 21, 2012, 03:20:27 PM
-
Amaril (622 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
Should a baby conceived by in vitro after father's death be eligible for SSI?
...
GreenPartyVoter (61,795 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. If the intent of SSI is to assist the remaining parent with the care of children who
already exist at the time of the other parent's death, then I would say that the posthumously conceived children would not qualify under that definition.
So I guess it all depends on how strictly you define the term "surviving child?"
Amaril (622 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
12. What if they were already embryos at the time of his death?
The article doesn't say when her eggs were actually fertalized with his sperm. With the GOP currently blurring the line regarding when a person actually becomes a person, what if her eggs had been fertalized before he died (and this is where I show my ignorance on the whole in vitro process, because I have no idea when that actually takes place)?
Understand, I'm not really advocating one way or the other -- as I said, I have mixed feelings -- I'm looking at it from a purely "legal philosophy" perspective, and it is in some ways similar to the custody cases that have been popping up in recent years over frozen embryos and who has a right to them when a couple divorces.
pnwmom (37,035 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
19. I think it would set a bad precedent to designate an embryo as equivalent to a person.
This would play into the right-to-lifers hands.
badtoworse (1,827 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
3. No way. She made the decision to have the twins after her husband was gone.
FogerRox (11,796 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
6. Not factual, they planned kids together.
pnwmom (37,035 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
23. There is no proof of that. He stored the sperm when there was still hope
that he would live.
But it doesn't matter. His wife CHOSE to have herself impregnated as a single person after his death. She had no reason to expect that the sperm he deposited would end up becoming eligible for survivor's benefits.
Must
serve
Molech!
Now, note this next poster's name as you read her post:
KJsMom (8 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
65. such judgement and misinformation
As the mother of a postumously conceived child I need to set you straight about a few things. When my husband donated his sperm, we underwent more that an hour of discussion and counseling. My husband had to sign legal documents giving me ownership of his sperm in the event of his death with the understanding that I could use it to conceive a child. Believe me -when I conceived my son through IVF (a VERY difficult process) shortly after I lost my husband, social security benefits were the last thing I was thinking about. It was actually brought up to me by someone I knew. If you had a child this way, and knew that your husband wanted a child and paid for these benefits, you would fight for your child to have these benefits. Your language is so incredibily offensive I don't even know where to begin. My husband had undergone BRAIN SURGERY 2 weeks before he donated his sperm. We had a tiny window of time to leave ONE sample before he started chemo. He did that for one reason and one reason only - so we could have a child. Survivor benefits were the last thing on my mind when I conceived my child. I wanted to be a mother (my son is my ONLY child) and I wanted to help my husband carry on in the only way he could. Being a widow and the mother of a young child is not easy. Frankly, I expect my son to be denied benefits in my state, and I don't hold out much hope for him if a case like mine goes to the supreme court, but I have to fight for him. That's my job as his mother and if you had a child conceived this way you would do the same thing.
pnwmom (37,035 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
72. I am very sorry for your loss. But, as terrible as that loss has been for you,
it doesn't change the fact that making a vial of sperm the legal equivalent of a child born before a man's death sets a precedent that threatens Roe v. Wade and even contraception case law. A sperm shouldn't have the same legal rights as a living, breathing human being.
You said it yourself -- after his death, you became the "owner" of the sperm. A dead person cannot own anything. So you are solely responsible for the life you arranged to come into the world, just as you would have been if you bought the sperm from a sperm bank (which also comes from willing donors).
Your husband didn't pay for benefits for children who came into being after his death. He, like everyone else, paid for benefits for any living children who survived him -- not a vial of sperm.
This is no god but Abortion and pwnmom is his prophet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002441985#post1
-
This is no god but Abortion and pwnmom is his prophet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002441985#post1
To which they must make human sacrifices. :redbird:
-
Wait a minute.
I thought they were all for killing off a mass of cells.
Now they want to propagate them for tax money??
I'm confused. :???:
-
Wait a minute.
I thought they were all for killing off a mass of cells.
Now they want to propagate them for tax money??
I'm confused. :???:
Confusion: The DUmmie in his natural state of mind.
Confusion say, "Woman with used rubber and turkey baster make money".
-
Wait a minute.
I thought they were all for killing off a mass of cells.
Now they want to propagate them for tax money??
I'm confused. :???:
Except for pwnmom who sees the threat to her beloved sacrament.
-
I'll bet the DUmmies would sing a different tune if this were a lesbian couple going after the benefits when the sperm donor died. They hate the idea of a man and woman loving each other enough to have a child of their own to carry on when one of the real parents die, though.
-
Sorry Primitive - you are too late.
In 2001, the Massachusetts Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the father's name should appear on the birth record for a child conceived through artificial insemination after her father's death, as well as whether that child was eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The court ruled in January 2002 that a child could be the legal heir of a dead parent if there was a genetic relationship and the deceased parent had both agreed to the posthumous conception and committed to support the child.[3] Different U.S. state courts and federal appellate courts have ruled differently in similar cases. In March 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Astrue v. Capato, a case involving a claim for U.S. Social Security benefits for twins born 18 months after their father's death after being conceived using the father's frozen sperm. The Supreme Court was expected to decide that case in the summer of 2012, thus clarifying the federal law regarding Social Security eligibility.[7]
Massachusetts has already given the child rights and benefits. Other states will follow after the USSC finalizes its decision.