• 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 . . .

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
What does the Constitution say on this? :roll:
 
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.

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.)
 
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
 
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.
 
Just to clarify again, a wife is not entitled to Social Security benefits when her husband dies until she turns age 60.
 
"Congress shall make no law giving government loot to popsicle kids."

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.
 
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.

original intent FTW
 
Just to clarify again, a wife is not entitled to Social Security benefits when her husband dies until she turns age 60.

I didn't get your reply to my statement until just now. Thanks for clarifying and thus I agree with you and Harry; however, I think this brings up an investing point. If the one spouse sports another, then why does a widow (er) have to wait till 60 to receive some form of benefit, for atleast a little bit while he/she looks for employment or trains for new employment

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
One great side benefit of this thread...it's made me realize I need to get on the ball with a term life insurance policy.
 
I didn't get your reply to my statement until just now. Thanks for clarifying and thus I agree with you and Harry; however, I think this brings up an investing point. If the one spouse sports another, then why does a widow (er) have to wait till 60 to receive some form of benefit, for atleast a little bit while he/she looks for employment or trains for new employment

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Social Security benefits were not designed to be anything other than retirement benefits. That a spouse can receive benefits at age 60 from a deceased spouse speaks to retirement...not ongoing support when one is younger.
 
Social Security benefits were not designed to be anything other than retirement benefits. That a spouse can receive benefits at age 60 from a deceased spouse speaks to retirement...not ongoing support when one is younger.

I know what it was designed for. But IMO it would be cheaper to let the widow(er) draw for a short time than have them on welfare. That said SS can and should be handled privately. It should be an opt in system IMO.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
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?

If the father is dead before insemination began, no.
If the father died during pregnancy, it should be the same as any normal conception
If the father died after the baby is born, yes
 
Whether she was pregnant at the time of the husband's death would be determinative. Since she was not and the children were born 18 months after his death they are not entitled to the father's social security benefits.
 
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?


If the husband died during the time the wife was pregnant I could see babies born through artificial insemination getting benefits.But not when she got inseminated after her husband died.It would be no different than if she tried to collect SS benifits for a child that was adopted after he husband died or benefits for step child.
 
What if it was not frozen sperm but frozen embryos?
 
What does the Constitution say on this? :roll:

I applaud your ability to cut quick to the issue with implementing unconstitutional laws on the federal level...they simply then proceed to create more and more issues that function outside of the constitutional groundwork of what the federal government of the united states is SUPPOSED to be doing. Bravo. You're absolutely right, Social Security doesn't have a direct link to a constitutional duty of government and as such various constitutional issues cascade down around it.
 
I applaud your ability to cut quick to the issue with implementing unconstitutional laws on the federal level...they simply then proceed to create more and more issues that function outside of the constitutional groundwork of what the federal government of the united states is SUPPOSED to be doing. Bravo. You're absolutely right, Social Security doesn't have a direct link to a constitutional duty of government and as such various constitutional issues cascade down around it.

I thanked him for posting, but he didn't take a position on the issue. No applause. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom