Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

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

  1. #1
    Sage


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

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

    Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should get benefits

    WASHINGTON — Karen Capato used the frozen sperm of her deceased husband to conceive twins, but the government denied them Social Security benefits as their father’s survivors. Her situation, more common as reproductive technology advances, had a mostly unsympathetic Supreme Court grappling Monday with the definition of “child,’ inheritance law and artificial insemination.
    The case had justices trying to shoehorn a 1930s law that gave Social Security survivor benefits to the dependent “child or legally adopted child” of a person into a modern situation where a man can bank his sperm for use months or years later to produce a child he will never see.

    “You want us to sort of apply this old law to new technology,” Justice Stephen Breyer said to Charles Rothfeld, the lawyer for Capato, the mother of twins fathered by her deceased husband, Robert. Lawmakers who wrote the survivor benefits law “never had any inkling about the situation that has arisen in this case,” added Justice Samuel Alito....
    Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should get benefits - The Washington Post
    Justice Scalia says, on the other hand, to the effect that this isn't about applying an old law to new technology, this is about whether children who are born after the death of one parent are entitled to Social Security benefits.

    I'm on the fence and am interested in reading others opinions.

    Should these children (who were conceived after their father died) be entitled to benefits from their deceased father? What was the intent of the original benefit?
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #2
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    They shouldn't get benefits, in my opinion.
    Those benefits are designed for the children of deceased people, with whom they relied on for income, livelihood, etc.

    In this case, the children were conceived after the death, so there was no expectation of them having their father, to get living resources from.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #3
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Would the wife get his benefits anyways. if yes, then are they entitled to more than she would be otherwise. If no then I don't see the problem. If either of those questions answers is wrong then its a gray area IMO because it would allow for fraud to keep benefits that would otherwise not be granted. Even so, I don't see why they shouldn't get the benefits

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  4. #4
    Guru
    ChuckBerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Last Seen
    10-28-13 @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,491

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

    I agree with Harry, the mother bore the children with no expectation that the father would ever be able to provide for them through his work, which is the point of Social Security survivor benefits. In this case, the work ceased prior to the conception of the children, so if the mother wanted to support the kids, she should have attended to that through her own efforts.
    The morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,081

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

    What does the Constitution say on this?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #6
    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 xpiher View Post
    Would the wife get his benefits anyways. if yes, then are they entitled to more than she would be otherwise. If no then I don't see the problem. If either of those questions answers is wrong then its a gray area IMO because it would allow for fraud to keep benefits that would otherwise not be granted. Even so, I don't see why they shouldn't get the benefits

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Sorry, Xpiher, I don't understand your answer. I will tell you that a wife is entitled to Social Security benefits against her husbands account -- but not until she turns age 60.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    They shouldn't get benefits, in my opinion.
    Those benefits are designed for the children of deceased people, with whom they relied on for income, livelihood, etc.

    In this case, the children were conceived after the death, so there was no expectation of them having their father, to get living resources from.
    I'm with you, Harry. For the same reasons you list -- and one other. Know how people always find a way to milk the system? "Honey, we don't need any life insurance on me. I'll bank some sperm, you get pregnant if I die, and you'll get a monthly annuity until the kid's 18 years old." (My cynical lil' mind.)
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #7
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckBerry View Post
    I agree with Harry, the mother bore the children with no expectation that the father would ever be able to provide for them through his work, which is the point of Social Security survivor benefits. In this case, the work ceased prior to the conception of the children, so if the mother wanted to support the kids, she should have attended to that through her own efforts.
    I agree as well and amend my previous statement. that said, if the mother gets them anyways what exactly is the issue?

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  8. #8
    Guru
    ChuckBerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Last Seen
    10-28-13 @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,491

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    What does the Constitution say on this?
    "Congress shall make no law giving government loot to popsicle kids."
    The morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society.

  9. #9
    Guru
    ChuckBerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Last Seen
    10-28-13 @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,491

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    I agree as well and amend my previous statement. that said, if the mother gets them anyways what exactly is the issue?

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    The mother is entitled to survivor benefits...the children, not being survivors, are not entitled to their own benefits.
    The morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    What does the Constitution say on this?
    Bazziiiiiing!

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •