Boy conceived after father's death not entitled to Social Security, court rules

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 4:59 a.m.

    I think the judge is right on this. Parenting is an implied and civil choice of living parents. For a child to have govenrment benefits conceived of a deceased donor does not qualify as parenting or accountability.

    It was apparent by the agreement that this cryogenic purpose was to promote the genes and DNA to clone a family name but not for financial or government support. The intent was a child, not a government dependent and so is the laws of the land. The mothers choice to be impregnated was her own and she is completley accountable on her own SSA benefits as a living parent. People cannot come back from the dead to claim entitlements and public benefits. A post death pregnancy cloning is not legal parenting in his name.

    If this case was allowed an entitlement, it would make any sperm/egg donor accountable and responsible for any child born, and that is not allowable. Who is accountable for a cloned human?

  • BBLVR Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 8:35 p.m.

    Excellent decision.

  • Economist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    Okay, here's the problem with the Supreme Court's Ruling: In the course of winding down a decedent's affairs and representing the estate, the surviving spouse steps into the shoes of the deceased to act as a surrogate in all other matters of law pertaining to the family and its affairs. This includes tax law ( to include filing individual taxes on behalf of the recently deceased), probate and estate law, creditor and debt liability, partnerships with rights of survivorship, etc, etc.

    By acknowledging that a family is one economic unit, business can still be conducted and unresolved issues can be addressed. This is nothing new and has been enshrined within common law codes before the birth of this nation.

    So, my point is that if a wife can attest as to the intentions of her dead husband during matters of business and represent his estate, then why not in this case?

    It makes no sense to presume that the surviving spouse can deduce the true intentions of her dearly departed without question, but when it comes to matters of constructing and validating the family unit, such a presumption cannot exist.