Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

  1. #31
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    They're HIS children - of course yes. Holy ****!
    If she conceived - he was killed 2 days later - and 9 months later she had the babies they'd qualify.
    Wow - just wow.

    Now: if she was insiminated with *someone else's* sperm then no - doesn't it make sense that way?
    This is essentially a mother trying to get benefits for children of a deceased sperm donor like one who sold his sperm to a fertility clinic.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #32
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I think we need more facts here. Why did the father bank his sperm? Was it done with the intent that his wife would definitely have artificial insemination in the event that they couldn't have another child naturally? If so then I think the child should be entitled to the benefits. Why should it be any different than a case where the father died while the mother was already pregnant? What if the mother had gotten inseminated while the father was on his death bed? Basing the decision purely on the timing seems arbitrary.

    If, OTOH, there was no clear intent by the father to have the child, then I think the child shouldn't inherit. Imagine the precedent that would set. If a guy donates to sperm banks, is the government going to have to run around looking for his seedlings in order to split up his benefits 100 ways?
    No, we don't need more information. Whenever one has to look at, "What was their thought process," one will hear whatever one needs to hear to, in this case, make the children eligible. This is cut and dried.

    Is a child who is conceived after the death of a parent entitled to Social Security benefits from that parent's account.
    And just FYI, Social Security benefits are not split up. Whatever the benefit is for a child is paid to each and every child equally.

    Talk about a way to further bankrupt Social Security -- we're lookin' at it here.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #33
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    No, we don't need more information. Whenever one has to look at, "What was their thought process," one will hear whatever one needs to hear to, in this case, make the children eligible. This is cut and dried.
    There are very few areas of the law where intent plays no part. I don't see why this should be any different.

    Would it make a difference to you if it had been a frozen embro, versus a frozen sperm sample?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #34
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    Why are you shocked? Loose wire on the lamp cord?
    Notice the racist tone there about our founders, and the silly notion that this subject matter is worthy of being addressed within the Constitution itself. Race has zero to do with this thread, but partisan hackery is at work to make it so.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #35
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    There are very few areas of the law where intent plays no part. I don't see why this should be any different.

    Would it make a difference to you if it had been a frozen embro, versus a frozen sperm sample?
    Hey, we could make frozen embryoes beneficiaries of welfare 20 years down the road if they are grown in a test tube. We could prestack the welfare pool way ahead.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    They are his children, they should get the benefits. Simple as that.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  7. #37
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    They are his children, they should get the benefits. Simple as that.
    Wrong, and your attempt to pull heart strings is the typical left wing approach to all debate. You can't just infringe on tax payer's rights every time it suits you. You want to cover benefits for such a baby, adopt it and pay for it yourself. It's as simple as that.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Wrong, and your attempt to pull heart strings is the typical left wing approach to all debate. You can't just infringe on tax payer's rights every time it suits you. You want to cover benefits for such a baby, adopt it and pay for it yourself. It's as simple as that.
    When did I do this? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #39
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    There are very few areas of the law where intent plays no part. I don't see why this should be any different.

    Would it make a difference to you if it had been a frozen embro, versus a frozen sperm sample?
    No, it wouldn't make a difference. Social Security survivorship benefits are for children, in my opinion, who are alive at the time their parent dies. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS decides, however. Nothing would surprise me.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  10. #40
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    From the article :


    In other words she deliberately got pregnant with his children AFTER he died then applied for benefits for the children (she had twins). Shes taking advantage of the system, the care and rearing should be up to her as the father had zero say in the event. If an estate were involved, they would be in no way entitled to anything. I would argue that this is trying to "grandfather" children into beneficiaries after the death for lack of a better term.

    Ill predict we will need a law to cover this situation because if it succeeds once, you can guarantee it will be tried over and over.
    Didn't he bank his sperm just in case he passed away before having kids?

    What's wrong with him planning for this? The dude died of cancer - the least he could have are children in his name who are well supported from his efforts made while he was alive.

    I see nothing wrong with it - it's not like a million women are going to be doing this.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •