Comments on: Supreme Court Rules Against Benefits for IVF Babies Conceived After Their Dads’ Death

By: Monica

Monica — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:44:07 +0000

I agree with Allison. I would also try to have a baby from my deceased husbands sperm no matter if I were broke or not. Besides, there has to be some kind of loop hole… like amending the will before his death to gender neutral names so the unborn children may still get benefits after his death.

By: Allison

Allison — Thu, 31 May 2012 14:01:50 +0000

I think we need to look from that mother’s perspective. If my husband were to pass away I would definitely want to use his sperm to have a child, especially if we had not had any. I could not imagine the pain of losing my husband to cancer having wanted to have children with him. I would want so desperately to have a piece of him with me regardless of the cost and I am sure I would assume that they would get the benefits any other child would. My heart breaks for this woman.

By: amanda

amanda — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:46:37 +0000

If you CHOOSE to get IVF that costs ALLOT OF MONEY TO START WITH …. WHY SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GET MONEY FOR IT !! …. exp not after the death of the man who was the father was dead …. and if they allowed that then could any woman ask for benafits from a father of a child conceved after a one night stand , a bad break up etc and he passes away , should the woman be able to claim that child and recive benifits ? ….
Its FAR from fair to say … oh i’m able to pay hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of dollars to concive a baby thu IVF BUT …. my husbands now dead … and i need his Benifits from his death !!!! …thats crazy !!!!

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 29 May 2012 13:06:47 +0000

Brooke…survival social security is not government assistance. It is the money the father paid into social security and any of his surviving children would get automatically if they were alive before his death. The social secuirty is not the issue here…it is whether children that are conceived after the father’s death should have the same rights as the children that were already born before death. Either way the money is going to be given to surviving children.
AND perhaps he froze his sperm knowing he was ill and wanted his wife to still have children. I know if my husband had left sperm and then passed away I would want to still continue his legacy and have his children. He planned to have children and therefore his contributions to the government’s social security should cover them. perhaps if they are given their father’s social security they will not have to go on real government assistance!

By: missb

missb — Fri, 25 May 2012 23:49:01 +0000

Why should they receive social security benefits? I agree with the person above. They may be the offspring of the deceased person but they wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for a laboratory. The mother made a conscious decision to bring the children into this world with the help of science and I don’t think that makes them eligible for such benefits…she forfeited the right to government benefits when she conceived via ‘unnatural’ means. By unnatural I am saying that the resulting pregnancy would otherwise be impossible if it weren’t for science.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Fri, 25 May 2012 20:39:25 +0000

Personally I dont know why anyone would want to have a baby after the Husbands Passing and I think if you make the decision Then social security shouldn’t have to pay for it. If she couldn’t afford them without government assistance in my opinion she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant Not saying there is anything wrong with assistance when something bad happens like the father Dies but She knew the score and the budget before she got pregnant