• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Karen Capato used the frozen sperm of her deceased husband to conceive twins

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?
 
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?

From the article :
The Capato twins were born through using Robert Capato’s frozen sperm 18 months after he died of esophageal cancer

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.
 
I agree with what others have said. The mother elected to be insemination long after her husband died, knowing that she would have to accept sole parenting and support responsibilities. Social security benefits for the children should be denied.
 
You mean a document written in the 18th century by a slave owning, affluent, white, male minority is mute on a 21st century issue? I for one am absolutely shocked.

Why are you shocked? Loose wire on the lamp cord?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
They are his children, they should get the benefits. Simple as that.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Dad probably paid into the SS system his whole working life. Since he's not drawing on it, I don't see a problem with giving it to the children.
 
I'm inclined to agree with the Supreme Court. These kind of bioethical debates simply weren't even on congresspeople's minds when the legislation was written. They shouldn't get benefits, otherwise it would be very easy to abuse the system...anyone who wanted to conceive a child without a partner would just make sure that the donor was already dead so that the kids could claim social security benefits. I think it's different if the kids are conceived "naturally" but the father dies before they are born, because there was an expectation that they'd be able to live off of his income, whereas in this case there isn't.

It sucks for the kids that they'll only have the income of one parent, but lots of naturally conceived kids are in that same situation. If they're in poverty, then by all means give them the same help that anyone else would get...but they shouldn't get SS survivor benefits simply because they only have one parent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom