- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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?
The Capato twins were born through using Robert Capato’s frozen sperm 18 months after he died of esophageal cancer
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'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?
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?
Is a child who is conceived after the death of a parent entitled to Social Security benefits from that parent's account.
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.
Why are you shocked? Loose wire on the lamp cord?
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?
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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?