Skip to comments.High Court conceives of life after death
Posted on 03/20/2012 7:55:38 AM PDT by Former Fetus
Next week, the Supreme Court will begin deciding whether President Obamas health-care reforms live or die. But if you think thats ambitious, consider what the modest justices were debating on Monday: what Americans are allowed to do AFTER they die.
Specifically, the question before the court was whether a dead man can help conceive children.
This odd point of law came before the court after a woman, Karen Capato, gave birth to twins 18 months after her husband died of cancer. She had used sperm he deposited when he was alive, and she was seeking his Social Security survivor benefits for the kids.
The Constitution is silent on the question of posthumous conception, in large part because people back then did not sire children after death. In addition, the relevant Social Security law, written in 1939, does not get into questions of whether a surviving child includes one who was fertilized in vitro. In other words, the justices pretty much had to wing it.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
...but can’t comprehend life before birth.
While the law is cut and dry, we can be kind. Either because we know the wishes of the woman or because we can presume her wishes, we refer to a widow with “Mrs.” and to the man as her husband. Women usually outlive men. I knew one who would put the t.v. on, on Sunday afternoons, to hear the football games being broadcast from another room, as that reminded her of her deceased husband. It is only decent of us to respect these ladies.
If an insurance company wanted to offer a policy to cover the living expenses of children conceived by stored sperm (and, presumably, stored eggs) after the death of the insured, there could be no objection. The premiums such an insurance company would have to charge, would have to reflect the different cost involved.
The Social Security survivor benefits program was not designed to cover the cost of raising children conceived by stored sperm after the death of the father. If we, as a society, wanted it to do that, the proper way would be for Congress to work the thing out, not for the Supreme Court to change the law with respect to who is recognized to be a survivor.
Were the Supreme Court to change the law, how would this effect inheritance? Certainly, you recognize there would have to be some time limit in view of inheritance? You can’t wait forever to disburse an estate because there may be store sperm. If there is a limit, then why is the current limit, which is that you have to be pregnant at the time your husband passes away, a bad limit?
yeah I agree this is a mess best sorted out by congress, the court should probably stay out of it.
The law has long recognized a process of becoming human within the womb, prior to Roe v. Wade, which upset this law.
We can say our former law derived from St. Ambrose, who said, that which has the potential to be human should be treated as human.
The Catholic Church has, in the past century, overturned St. Ambrose, by denying there is no such thing as something that has the potential to be human and something that is human. Human life begins, all at once, upon conception.
The Catholic Church says that this is a matter of science. Human life is a function of the joining of a sperm and an egg.
St. Ambrose and I think differently. We think human life occurs when God infuses an eternal human soul into the material stuff. St. Ambrose and I know this has happened at or before the time of quickening. But, we do not claim to know when exactly this occurs.
Up until Roe v. Wade, our laws reflected this wonder. In all but two states, abortion was a crime after three months, and merely a regulated medical practice before (the two other states split on the matter, one making abortion a crime from conception, and other making abortion a regulated medical practice until birth).
In half the states, the woman involved was not identified as a criminal, but as herself a victim (probably a double victim, by the man who seduced her and by the abortionist who told her nobody would love her or her baby). In the other states, the woman was given statutory immunity in return for her testimony against the abortionist.
I think we had it about right, back before the Supreme Court overturned our laws as passed by our state legislatures.
On the matter of survivors, this has long been settled: if the woman is pregnant at this time her husband dies, that child, should the child be born and live the requisite period of time outside the womb, would be recognized as a surviving child of the deceased. Accordingly, that child would be fully qualified for an insurance benefit and proper share in the estate of the deceased.
This sums it up pretty well. There was no survivor to give the benefits to until she created one. You are right on the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.