General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,265 posts)

92. I think there is a good legal argument for having a child who was conceived before the death

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:37 PM

Mar 2012

to be a survivor, though I haven't read any legal opinions.

For one thing, the social security law requires that the "child" be a DEPENDENT of the deceased. I think you can easily make the argument that a fetus is a dependent of the father. But I don't see that with a vial of sperm.

I agree that these issues are best resolved by Congress -- and I think that's how the Court will decide. (And I'd have no problem with Congress deciding to draft a law that gave rights to these children without eroding contraception and abortion case law.)

Here's another question asked by Sotomayor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/supreme-court-conceives-of-life-after-death/2012/03/19/gIQAxtJ5NS_story.html

“What if you are a sperm donor? Does any offspring that sperm donor have qualify?”

_______________________

If the current Social security law was interpreted the way Karen Capatu wants it to be, that is not a far-fetched possibility.

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