TruerWords Logo
Google
 
Web www.truerwords.net

Search TruerWords

Welcome
Sign Up  Log On

“Posthumous Parentage”

From: Seth Dillingham In Response To: Top of Thread.  
Date Posted: Thursday, June 6, 2002 9:58:18 PM Replies: 2
   
Enclosures: None.

In Living in a Science Fiction Novel: Inheritance Rights for Posthumous Conceived Children, Brian Carnell says that he occasionally thinks he's a "minor character stuck in a science fiction novel."

I'd have to agree. The situation he's discussing is that of a little girl, Sayana, whose father died of brain cancer two years (!) before she was born. (He had saved some sperm in a sperm bank before he started chemotherapy.)

Sayana's mother is now a single parent "living on a teacher's salary," and wants her to receive social security "survivor benefits." Normally there'd be no question about this, but the poor Social Security administration office is in a bind: the kid didn't exist when the father died, the mother wasn't even pregnant until a year-and-a-half later, and yet she really is his daughter, his biological descendant.

Brian raises another question about dividing up estates: there are potentially thousands or millions of "unborn children" to anybody who's donated to the sperm bank. When these donors die, how can the estates be divided up with so many legitimate offspring still unborn?

The whole mess raises so many issues, calls so many things into question, that it's no wonder the courts don't want to deal with it, that they're begging the legislatures to pass some laws to make the courts' jobs easier.

Think about it: can they say that life starts at conception, and only those which were conceived before the parent's death are to be granted death benefits or part of the estate? That sounds logical, perhaps, but then that means they've defined life (individual life) as starting at conception. See the problem? Now the whole abortion issue comes into play, because if life starts at conception, then abortion is killing. If instead they say that life starts at birth, then they have to deal with the other side of the abortion-rights issue, and what about the children who were already conceived when the father died?

Quite the house of cards, and this is just the beginning. Science seems to have outrun our ability to decide between right and wrong (should Sayana get the benefits or not?). The whole situation seems to be wrong, somehow.

Part of me just wants to laugh, but part of me finds it all quite repulsive.


Discussion Thread:
  • Re: Posthumous Parentage (by Brian Carnell at 6/7/2002)

    At 10:04 PM 6/6/02 -0400, Seth wrote: >Think about it: can they say that life starts at conception,

    • RE: Posthumous Parentage (by Greg Pierce at 6/7/2002)

      On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:27:19 -0400, Brian Carnell wrote: >And then there's the whole issue of frozen

      • RE: Posthumous Parentage (by Brian Carnell at 6/7/2002)

        At 09:35 AM 6/7/02 -0400, Greg Pierce wrote: >They're pretty careful about that these days, and make

  • Re: Posthumous Parentage (by Jim Roepcke at 6/7/2002)

    On Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 07:04 PM, Seth Dillingham wrote: > that means they've defined life

    • RE: Posthumous Parentage (by Mark Morgan at 6/7/2002)

      > >Under what definition is abortion not killing? I thought the abortion >debate was about

    • Re: Posthumous Parentage (by Steve Ivy at 6/7/2002)

      The debate over abortion is very complex... I believe the "choice" argument comes from the previous

      • Re: Posthumous Parentage (by Jim Roepcke at 6/7/2002)

        On Friday, June 7, 2002, at 11:29 AM, Steve Ivy wrote: > The debate over abortion is very complex...

        • RE: Posthumous Parentage (by Mark Morgan at 6/7/2002)

          For the most part what I've seen of the pro-choice lobby carefully sidesteps the "is it alive" part

        • When is it a human life? (by Seth Dillingham at 6/7/2002)

          On 6/7/02, Jim Roepcke said: >The life argument relies on the assumption that a woman doesn't have >control

          • Re: When is it a human life? (by Brian Carnell at 6/7/2002)

            At 03:37 PM 6/7/02 -0400, Seth wrote: >If even the fertilized ovum is a human life -- a position

            • RE: When is it a human life? (by Seth Dillingham at 6/7/2002)

              On 6/7/02, Brian Carnell said: >>If even the fertilized ovum is a human life -- a position that is not

              • RE: When is it a human life? (by Brian Carnell at 6/7/2002)

                At 04:20 PM 6/7/02 -0400, Seth wrote: >You said "a person" and I said "a human life". I think we're

        • RE: Posthumous Parentage (by Brian Carnell at 6/7/2002)

          At 03:09 PM 6/7/02 -0400, Jim wrote: >Could be wrong, but I didn't think the status of the fetus

          • Re: Posthumous Parentage (by Bill Kearney at 6/10/2002)

            And what sense does this make? This sounds more like an overzealous prosecutor. One that's hell bent

            • RE: Posthumous Parentage (by Brian Carnell at 6/10/2002)

              At 10:10 AM 6/10/02 -0400, Bill wrote: >And what sense does this make? This sounds >more like

Trackbacks:

There are no trackbacks.


Until August 31
My Amazon sales
benefit the PMC

Homepage Links

Apr 1 - Aug 31
Ad revenue
benefits the PMC


TruerWords
is Seth Dillingham's
personal web site.
More than the sum of my parts.