General Discussion

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)

62. "Planning to" is the operative phrase

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:42 PM

Mar 2012

Lots of parents "plan" to have their babies born before jan 1, so they can claim a deduction for the whole year, and even though the due-dates indicate they should have the baby before Jan 1, many pesky little rascals stay put until Jan 1 or later.

The law is pretty specific..even though they planned to have the baby sooner, they still get no deduction..

Born to/son-daughter of, means in utero or actually born..not just "planned".

While I understand her desire to have a child after his death, she should not expect to claim survivor's benefits for the child (not yet conceived) before the death.

This sort of thing needs to have some actual law regarding what's legal & binding, and what's not, since so many people are using in vitro, and more and more young people seem to be getting cancer (and may want to do something similar in the future)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should a baby conceived by in vitro after father's death be eligible for SSI? [View all] Amaril Mar 2012 OP

I would think she is on her own Politicalboi Mar 2012 #1

And that is wrong, on so many levels....... Amaril Mar 2012 #4

Thank you Politicalboi Mar 2012 #9

If the intent of SSI is to assist the remaining parent with the care of children who GreenPartyVoter Mar 2012 #2

What if they were already embryos at the time of his death? Amaril Mar 2012 #12

I think it would set a bad precedent to designate an embryo as equivalent to a person. pnwmom Mar 2012 #19

because an embryo isn't a human being yet.. snooper2 Mar 2012 #56

No way. She made the decision to have the twins after her husband was gone. badtoworse Mar 2012 #3

Not factual, they planned kids together. FogerRox Mar 2012 #6

What difference does that make? badtoworse Mar 2012 #8

There is no proof of that. He stored the sperm when there was still hope pnwmom Mar 2012 #23

such judgement and misinformation KJsMom Mar 2012 #65

I am very sorry for your loss. But, as terrible as that loss has been for you, pnwmom Mar 2012 #72

Put the SS benefits aside, we agree. FogerRox Mar 2012 #104

Actually, per the article....... Amaril Mar 2012 #11

In the case of the deceased making provisions in a will,... badtoworse Mar 2012 #13

That's what she claims. How do you know it's true? pnwmom Mar 2012 #26

I think that once a person dies their frozen parts should be disposed of Marrah_G Mar 2012 #5

What about organ donation? hughee99 Mar 2012 #36

I'm sorry, I meant their reproductive parts Marrah_G Mar 2012 #77

If the rules say no then thats that FogerRox Mar 2012 #7

Maybe this is just me. I've had a child through in vitro woodsprite Mar 2012 #10

It will be perceived as cloudbase Mar 2012 #14

If you ask any of these Repuke's about it... Jello Biafra Mar 2012 #15

So are you accepting the Repubs argument that sperm and/or embryos pnwmom Mar 2012 #21

No I'm not....I think the whole thing is beyond ridiculous...... Jello Biafra Mar 2012 #47

I don't understand then why you said, "Yes, she's entitled." pnwmom Mar 2012 #54

I suffered from a case of sarcasm....my apologies......it happens when I see ridiculousness.... Jello Biafra Mar 2012 #97

I think it's inconsiderate to the child, to be conceived after the father's death. Quantess Mar 2012 #16

I think your comment is incredibly ill informed and judgemental KJsMom Mar 2012 #80

First of all, SSI has NOTHING to do with paternity. mysuzuki2 Mar 2012 #17

There is a significant difference. If a man uses in vitro while he is alive, there is pnwmom Mar 2012 #20

Sorry, but I disagree. DNA is DNA. mysuzuki2 Mar 2012 #28

The right-to-lifers and the anti-contraception people agree with you. pnwmom Mar 2012 #29

Suppose the man had donated his DNA-laden sperm to a sperm bank. pnwmom Mar 2012 #41

I think you ared creating false equivalencies here. mysuzuki2 Mar 2012 #45

How do you know he had any intention to have a baby created after his death? pnwmom Mar 2012 #46

Thank you, mysuzuki2 KJsMom Mar 2012 #79

I'm not gonna pretend I know the law OriginalGeek Mar 2012 #18

+1000 Mother Of Four Mar 2012 #22

Personally, Drahthaardogs Mar 2012 #40

"I am a little tired of paying for people's selfish choices." ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #57

Thank you! KJsMom Mar 2012 #69

Who says their needs won't be met? Would the woman have intentionally pnwmom Mar 2012 #43

Who knows? My SIL purposely got pregnant with no job, no home, and no degree. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #63

Any decision that said that sperm deposited before death pnwmom Mar 2012 #24

Will be even more interesting once cloning becomes possible. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #25

I've had personal experience with this. MoonchildCA Mar 2012 #27

Not true KJsMom Mar 2012 #83

Signature on a birth certificate would be proof. randome Mar 2012 #85

There are 3 signatures required on a CA birth certificate. MoonchildCA Mar 2012 #90

I'm gonna go with Yes. Iggo Mar 2012 #30

Does that mean you think that pnwmom Mar 2012 #31

What? Iggo Mar 2012 #32

There are lots of living, breathing children. badtoworse Mar 2012 #33

Yes there are. And who are these two children you think I'm thinking of? Iggo Mar 2012 #34

The twins who are the subject of the OP. Who else? pnwmom Mar 2012 #39

Isn't it equally valid to ask why these twins are less deserving than other children onenote Mar 2012 #87

All that existed at the time of his death was a vial of sperm. Not the twins. pnwmom Mar 2012 #37

Absolutely. Hatchling Mar 2012 #35

Why? Does the state give payments to all children who are born? pnwmom Mar 2012 #38

A point from Justice Ginsburg: what would happen with adopted children? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #42

I'm amazed that so many people here don't see the slippery legal slope pnwmom Mar 2012 #44

Why isn't it also a slippery slope to give SSI benefits to a child born after the father dies onenote Mar 2012 #76

I have seen that very question used as an anti-abortion argument. pnwmom Mar 2012 #82

I get this is not the context, but the question arises quaker bill Mar 2012 #48

Depends! - Does the right wing perception that the egg or sperm is a person play into the decision? liberal N proud Mar 2012 #49

This is becoming a new rw Cadillac Welfare Queen meme for attacking social security. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #50

If we give the same legal status to a vial of sperm as to the child of the man who was born before pnwmom Mar 2012 #58

Even though you can biologically postdate parenthood, Vinca Mar 2012 #51

Great Big NO on This One RobinA Mar 2012 #52

Donate? She could sell it. pnwmom Mar 2012 #59

He may have planned for it....but he didn't participate in it at the time it occurred.... cbdo2007 Mar 2012 #53

Do you mean Social Security? That's SSA. randome Mar 2012 #55

"Planning to" is the operative phrase SoCalDem Mar 2012 #62

In a previous life, I worked for SSA. randome Mar 2012 #64

It would seem that logic would still set you onto a slippery slope. You are granting rights at TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #94

Mother of postumously conceived child KJsMom Mar 2012 #60

Good points. randome Mar 2012 #61

Thank you for posting. ceile Mar 2012 #67

Welcome to DU. William769 Mar 2012 #68

What it would do is undermine the whole system of contraception and abortion case law, pnwmom Mar 2012 #74

Wow KJsMom Mar 2012 #78

The child didn't exist at the time of your husband's death -- only the potential for a child, pnwmom Mar 2012 #84

Yes, you are. At the time of your husband's death, that is what survived him. Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #98

why doesn't giving benefits to a child who is born after the parent dies do the same thing? onenote Mar 2012 #81

But we are talking about current law, not a law that Congress could possibly write in the future. pnwmom Mar 2012 #86

Again, under current law a child that was only a fetus when a parent died onenote Mar 2012 #88

And that has been used as an anti-abortion argument. I think the argument would be much stronger pnwmom Mar 2012 #89

By that reasoning you are supporting an anti-abortion argument if you concede that a child that was onenote Mar 2012 #91

I think there is a good legal argument for having a child who was conceived before the death pnwmom Mar 2012 #92

Yikes! From a standpoint of protecting the right to choose onenote Mar 2012 #95

Then you should certainly be concerned about Capatu's interpretation of the social security law pnwmom Mar 2012 #96

Is there going to be a statute of limitations on this or can you wait 10 or 15 years and then Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #66

Also, if you conceived via a sperm bank, but then found out the father had died would your child be Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #70

??! KJsMom Mar 2012 #71

These are issues that would come up. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #73

What if a man willed his vial of sperm to a friend? Or to a couple of friends? pnwmom Mar 2012 #75

They do not disclose the identity of the donors. n/t cynatnite Mar 2012 #100

I think the government is right to deny benefits. Ganja Ninja Mar 2012 #93

Absolutely, yes! cynatnite Mar 2012 #99

So if you conceived via a a sperm bank you should be able to pursue child support. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #101

Sperm banks as a practice do not disclose identities of their donors... cynatnite Mar 2012 #102

Could get expensive for one guy if he had 100's, 1000's, 10,000's, of kids. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #103