View Full Version : twins won't get SS benefits, supreme court decision
flowerseverywhere
5-27-12, 9:41am
http://news.yahoo.com/twins-conceived-dad-died-wont-benefits-143646787.html
I was reading recent supreme court decisions and this one fascinated me. Father died of cancer, twins conceived after his death with frozen sperm. Mother wanted social security benefits that children get when a parent dies. Supreme court said no based on the state's inheritance laws.
I don't think when the constitution was written they had any idea the technology that would raise these complicated questions. Very interestings times.
iris lily
5-27-12, 10:53am
For those who think this is a good decision, just wait--Congress will quickly rewrite SS laws to include these kids so that there is no confusion in the future..
If Congress has any say in it, there will never be any limits on social spending because it's an election year and besides, they can just print more money.
The constitution is silent both on in vitro fertilization and social security survivor benefits. Think how many pages it would have run if Madison had to take Octomom into account. Fortunately, it doesn't need to cover electricity, same sex marriage or cable television to fulfill it's purpose. It exists as a check on overweening federal power by listing what each branch of government is allowed to do, ways in which each branch can act as a control on the others, and prohibiting government expansion outside those enumerated powers. As a failsafe, it includes a list of amendments listing specific rights government is prohibited from abridging. It is more important in what it forbids government to do to citizens than what it requires government to do for citizens.
It is more important in what it forbids government to do to citizens than what it requires government to do for citizens.
+1
For those who think this is a good decision, just wait--Congress will quickly rewrite SS laws to include these kids so that there is no confusion in the future..
If Congress has any say in it, there will never be any limits on social spending because it's an election year and besides, they can just print more money.
There is NO WAY this Congress will pass any such law.
I am a bleeding heart liberal and I think (based on the little I've just read) that decision is correct.
ApatheticNoMore
5-28-12, 12:00pm
Yea it's really straightforward. It's not about the Constitution (IMO, the Supremes may have a different analysis on this), it's simply about the intent of the Social Security benefits. They were probably intended for children whose father's have died, and never intended for the deliberate choice to have children after their father is dead. Straight forward IMO. But don't let that stop you from flogging that horse. Congress campaigns on a lot of promises and many of them silly, but if anything I think the true long term trend is to cut, not expand Social Security. Growing old is this country is just going to be boatloads of fun.
Growing old is this country is just going to be boatloads of fun.
How did people manage to grow old in this country *before* the government stepped in to hold everybody's hands?
ApatheticNoMore
5-28-12, 2:26pm
Well I suppose the age old way is having kids in order to support you when you are older. So likely a lot of people had kids for that reason, even if they were not remotely fit to be parents (emotionally, economically, or even physically) and didn't even want kids. Unfortunate for the kids, but I guess it is a form of old age insurance.
I have no problem with the court decision on this. I have a jaundiced view of people producing children they can't support.
As far as "the good old days" go, we lived in a mostly agrarian/hunter gatherer society composed of large extended families living off the land; even old members of the family could contribute to their "keep." My great-grandfather, at ninety, listed his occupation as "gardener," though he had several other vocations throughout his life.
A great-grandmother from the other side of the family was not so lucky. Despite having a husband and family, which she eventually lost, she lived in slow decline from poor house to insane asylum to death by "senile exhaustion" at around fifty.
I'm glad to be living now, in a country with at least some safeguards (however second-rate) against the ravages of old age and poverty. I accept that I pay taxes as "dues" for living in a civilized society (endless war aside), and it doesn't bother me one whit that my paltry federal taxes go in part to help other people out.
As far as "the good old days" go, we lived in a mostly agrarian/hunter gatherer society composed of large extended families living off the land; even old members of the family could contribute to their "keep." My great-grandfather, at ninety, listed his occupation as "gardener," though he had several other vocations throughout his life.
My family must have missed the memo. My grandparents took care of their parents. My parents took care of/are taking care of my grandparents. My wife and I are caring for our parents. My daughter has been raised with the morals and ethics to do the same.
I suppose things are on the whole better today though, with families no longer being extended families, and many children not having both parents, much less contact with grandparents, aunts, uncles, great-grandparents, and so on.
How nice it is that the government has stepped in to fill the void.
When I look around in my admittedly small social circle, family members are mostly helping each other out as they always have. What has changed for us since my great-grandparents' day is that we have all had the benefits of Social Security, which I for one think is a terrific program.
What is this "memo" of which you speak? Just a little fillip of snark, I suppose. Unnecessary. Most of us are doing the best we can with what we have.
I guess if Kunstler et al get their wish we'll all get to experience the joys of nineteenth century life all over again, with women bearing double digit broods and everyone turning a hand to hard-scrabble living. Not my idea of good times, but to each his own.
...What has changed for us since my great-grandparents' day is that we have all had the benefits of Social Security, which I for one think is a terrific program...
One of these days I'll give a detailed saga of my interactions with the Social Security Administration concerning the strange problem of my workplace's participation in SS. One day we are in and the next day we are not, according to the SS. Just because you (the generic you) have paid in doesn't mean that you are part of the Social Security system. Who knew!!!?? I sure didn't. Our President doesn't really seem to intend to take care of everyone after all. He must have driven by my house and seen my McCain sign in the yard.
I'd be bitter about government too, under your circumstances.
My family must have missed the memo. My grandparents took care of their parents. My parents took care of/are taking care of my grandparents. My wife and I are caring for our parents. My daughter has been raised with the morals and ethics to do the same.
I suppose things are on the whole better today though, with families no longer being extended families, and many children not having both parents, much less contact with grandparents, aunts, uncles, great-grandparents, and so on.
How nice it is that the government has stepped in to fill the void.
But the morality of caregiving works both ways. When you have a couple of generations of parents divorcing or leaving their spouses and children, of never married single parents, and of abentee parents due to a whole variety of reasons, well you lose that "morality" requirement to have to care for your parents or grandparents. Should I take care of a parent who voluntarily choose to leave their family rather than stay and raise them? The traditional life-long one-family from birth to death situation doesn't exist for many people, and along with it is the level of commitment to care for aging parents who may never been in the child's life at all - or vin a very limited way.
The traditional life-long one-family from birth to death situation is gone, and along with it is the level of commitment to care for aging parents who may never been in the child's life at all - or vin a very limited way.
Oh it's not gone, but it is rapidly becoming an anomaly.
In the rise and fall of western civilization, I believe we're on the down cycle.
Oh it's not gone, but it is rapidly becoming an anomaly.
In the rise and fall of western civilization, I believe we're on the down cycle.
What's sort of amazing to me is how some parents who leave their spouses and kids - often to start other families or follow other (selfish IMHO) "dreams" - or single parents who were never there for the kids or maybe abusive still expect their kids to care fore them physically and financially in their old age. Or worse, expect them to care for a step-parent that was the cause of a family break up. I remember my Dad, who had an affair and left my Mom and 3 kids (destitute and homeless) for this woman, expected us kids to not only care for him in his old age, but his second wife as well. He felt it was our "moral" obligation as his kids. Yeah, right! Glad to know that guys like you and Gregg and other's here are out there still - being there for your spouses, kids and grandkids is what life is all about!
flowerseverywhere
5-29-12, 9:31pm
Sometimes children don't have the means to care for their parents. we know several people who are underemployed or unemployed, have kids in college and are trying to put food on the table. The kids work, the spouses work but without a really good income it is hard. Going to the grocery store sometimes takes my breath away when I see how expensive stuff is. Also, despite having good health insurance we have had several years when DH was out of work due to medical reasons, with high medical bills to go along with it. We only have one remaining parent and if she did not have a small pension and social security she would have been destitute and drawn down all the savings they struggled a lifetime to accumulate. We help, and SIL was helping until BIL was also thrown out of work in a drastic "downsizing/rightsizing" move by his company. It is only a matter of time until she gives up the house she has lived in since a child. She will probably spend some time with us and some time with SIL and we'll all make do. But I can see if I was an abandoned spouse, or if she had not taken such good care of her kids the situation would be completely different.
It would be a wonderful world if everyone grew up in an intact family, got married after completing college and getting a good job, had no school loans, didn't lose their shirt in the housing market (a lot of good people got caught in the housing bubble and are now upside down and didn't do anything crazy or dishonest), had no unexpected pregnancies, had no special needs children, did not get sick, had affordable health care, had a spouse that stuck with them through thick and thin, and their kids graduated from college with minimal school loans and got good jobs right away. Oh, and had their salaries rise with the cost of the goods they consumed like food, heat and gas for their car and had no periods of unemployment or underemployment.
You wanna know what? Life happens. So you do the best you can and try not to judge others and do the best you can for your family.
To take this back to bae's question early in the thread, I think the answer to the question "what did people do before the government stepped in to hold their hands?" the answer is that on average people died young and poor. At least by today's standards. If they were lucky enough to have family to care for them and to not suffer any serious medical problem they might have lived a long, and happy, life. If they weren't, whether because they didn't have kids, didn't treat the kids well enough to make the kids care for them, or whatever, then they probably had a pretty miserable last few years of life. And since healthcare was pretty much nonexistent everyone dropped dead pretty quickly once they had their terminal illness regardless of what that illness was or whether it happened at age 50 or age 90.
One of these days I'll give a detailed saga of my interactions with the Social Security Administration concerning the strange problem of my workplace's participation in SS. One day we are in and the next day we are not, according to the SS. Just because you (the generic you) have paid in doesn't mean that you are part of the Social Security system. Who knew!!!?? I sure didn't. Our President doesn't really seem to intend to take care of everyone after all. He must have driven by my house and seen my McCain sign in the yard.
sooo....It's President Obama's fault? Really? Like, personally? He personally decided to screw over you and your co-workers? Who knew?
iris lily
5-30-12, 10:20am
sooo....It's President Obama's fault? Really? Like, personally? He personally decided to screw over you and your co-workers? Who knew?
I'm so glad that you asked!
He's sitting in the chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The buck stops there. While I'm fairly certain that this Social Security circus act would have taken place under GW or Bill Clinton or any of the recent Presidents, Mr. Obama gets the credit and blame for what happens on his watch. These clowns work for him.
To take this back to bae's question early in the thread, I think the answer to the question "what did people do before the government stepped in to hold their hands?" the answer is that on average people died young and poor. At least by today's standards.
I certainly agree that we are far better off today when it comes to being able to identify and correct afflictions, but I also think it goes deeper than that. For one thing we have significantly reduced infant mortality rates. That is important. In days of old we're told the average lifespan was 46 years for a male. If you take one that died as an infant at age 1 and another that lived to age 91 the average is 46. It didn't take many babies dying to drop the average way down. The other thing to remember is that while people in the past may have had to work very hard and did not have access to all the modern marvels of healthcare they also didn't routinely poison themselves with processed foods and chemical additives and noxious fumes and heavy metals, etc. that are, IMO, at the root of why we need so much healthcare and assistance in the first place. Sorry for the detour...
flowerseverywhere
5-30-12, 12:07pm
and to get back to the original supreme court decision, SS was formed to help out people who used to end up destitute. Widows with children can get benefits, children who have lost a parent to death and old people. In theory it isn't a bad idea except the government is involved and we all know how things get messed up regardless of who is in office. A long line of people have made decisions that haven't helped keep the program solvent.
the decision of children conceived after the father died seems like a planned event rather than an unexpected one that SS survivor benefits were made to help.
By the way, we read a lot of history and all you need to do is look to the early 1800's in England or just one example, urchins ran through the streets living under bridges, surviving on what they could steal or beg wearing rags - waiting victims for the many predators that exist in any culture. Many countries still have roving children doing the same thing today.
flowerseverywhere
5-30-12, 12:10pm
Gregg, you make a good point as well. I know many retired (or downsized) people who spend most of their day sitting on the couch watching TV. In the "old days" someone like that would have been in charge of caring for children, gardening, cleaning the house etc. - they would have had a useful place in society.
So if nothing else, I can thank SS for helping allow me to opt out of forced "usefulness." :moon:
I really should mosey over to the gratitude thread and reiterate how thankful I am to be alive today and not a hundred years ago.
To take this back to bae's question early in the thread, I think the answer to the question "what did people do before the government stepped in to hold their hands?" the answer is that on average people died young and poor.
I've just been mulling this thought over because I've been working on a hobby I have exploring my family history on ancestry.com, and interestingly enough, I have recently discovered that my great-grandfather and his brother are an interesting case study in the rich and the poor.
The rich brother was a high achiever, and made millions (in turn-of-the-century dollars) in real estate. (None of it trickled down because he lost a lot in the Depression, moved to CA and made a fairly decent living there). By all accounts, prior to the Depression he lived a life in high society--the good life, materially speaking
The other brother (my great-grandfather) was a bit of a misfit, and I've traced his history to residency in a poorhouse, called New York Farm Colony, which was in Staten Island. A poorhouse! I've heard of them from reading Charles Dickens, but never really considered that they served a purpose in our country. But of course, that was pre-welfare days. So if my great-grandfather were alive today, would he be homeless? On welfare? Maybe on SSI or SS?
Of course questions emerge: Why did his rich brother not take better care of him? OTOH, don't we often leave our own relatives today to their own demise? Many of us feel no sense of responsibility for brothers or sisters. We feel they should help themselves, or not.
We have gone from institutionalizing the weak, poor, and young to farming them out--now we have foster homes in place of orphanages; welfare instead of poorhouses. What is the best model for caring for our weak, poor and young citizens? They're always going to be around--no matter who is in the White House. So do we give them what they need--and if so, how? Or do we give them what we think they "deserve"?
So, this whole post is a bit of a meander from the topic, but in terms of Social Security, my personal opinion is that it is a safety net, and a necessary one. If my great-grandfather had access to it, I wonder how his life would have been different.
So if nothing else, I can thank SS for helping allow me to opt out of forced "usefulness." :moon:
Seems to me the current funding model for SS requires other younger people to be forced to be useful, so you don't have to be :-)
εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω
εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω
From the Wikipedia page on the New York State Farm Colony:
Jurisdiction over the site was transferred in 1924 to the city's Homes for Dependents agency, which lifted the requirement that all residents of the colony had to work — with most of the work involving the cultivation of many varieties of fruits and vegetables, and at various times even grains such as wheat and corn; these crops fed not only the colony's residents but met the needs of other city institutions as well.[1]
So, just wondering, if my great-grandfather sang for his supper, is that enough? Maybe he had a good life picking vegetables and fruits. I'm not being sarcastic--I'm honestly just asking a question. Do you suppose he had a decent life, getting to work outside picking fruits and vegetables? Did he feel like a slave? Did he feel lucky to have a roof over his head? Is he more worthy of respect because he was there pre-1924 as opposed to the post-1924 population who didn't have to work?
Just a few questions.
"someone like that would have been in charge of caring for children, gardening, cleaning the house etc." (FlowersEverywhere)
Just shoot me now. I purposely chose not to do those things (save for minimal housework) when I was young and spry. I would be picking out my private ice floe if I had to do them at this stage of the game.
I wouldn't be "useful" "at the point of a gun" regardless. I have some assets apart from SS, after all.
I'm all for judicious reform of SS (starting with removing the FICA cap), but even when I was paying (much) higher taxes, it never occurred to me to begrudge my elders a little stipend at the end of their lives.
I was a Romance Languages major, so whatever you said is just Greek to me. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/man_in_love.gif
Speaking of poor farms and such, I'm sure my great grandmother did some kind of work to earn her keep at the poor house and later at the asylum. At the asylum, such work had the added benefit of entertaining the public who toured the Cuckoo's Nest* facility on weekends to amuse themselves at the sight of their inferiors engaged in menial tasks. I wonder if my g-g had garden duty, only because I have such a visceral aversion to it myself. Fanciful thinking, I know.
*Literally. She was probably locked away in the now-defunct Building J.
Speaking of poor farms and such, I'm sure my great grandmother did some kind of work to earn her keep at the poor house and later at the asylum. At the asylum, such work had the added benefit of entertaining the public who toured the Cuckoo's Nest* facility on weekends to amuse themselves at the sight of their inferiors engaged in menial tasks. I wonder if my g-g had garden duty, only because I have such a visceral aversion to it myself. Fanciful thinking, I know.
*Literally. She was probably locked away in the now-defunct Building J.
Here's where I wish we had a "Like" button on these forums.
iris lily
5-31-12, 11:27am
http://www.poorhousestory.com/IOWA_PHOTOS_3.htm
Here’s where my great-great grandfather died. The Jones County, Iowa Poorhouse is actually still standing and is now a “county home.” I paid a visit to it just a few years ago.
There’s a terrible story in my family. The old man’s wife died in a fire that burnt up the barn where she and her children were staying. We don’t know how exactly that happened because his progeny wouldn’t talk about it, but I theorize drink played a role: the poorhouse occupant didn’t provide for his family due to drink. The children survived the fire.
Wow--Iris Lilly, very cool postcard. I think the stories that make up our family trees can be so interesting. My kids don't seem to care at all, and my aunt kind of shrugs off the questions I ask about her grandfather--I think her idea is to paint as positive a picture as you can about your family and ignore the other stuff because who knows what's in the family DNA? But I think knowing the good/bad/ugly paints a picture of our humanity, warts and all.
Wow--Iris Lilly, very cool postcard. I think the stories that make up our family trees can be so interesting. My kids don't seem to care at all, and my aunt kind of shrugs off the questions I ask about her grandfather--I think her idea is to paint as positive a picture as you can about your family and ignore the other stuff because who knows what's in the family DNA? But I think knowing the good/bad/ugly paints a picture of our humanity, warts and all.
I am often struck by the amusing irony of life, and ironically, I didn't care at all about the ancestors until everyone with a brain who could recall anything had died. THEN they all became (somewhat) interesting! haha. But mainly I'm interested in the Scottish ones, the others (which, again, ironically) I've got good records for back to the old countries are not very interesting to me.
I heard about that History channel show "Hatfields and McCoys" and my grandmother was a Hatfield from Arkansas, so likely she was related to those famous feuding ones.
I am often struck by the amusing irony of life, and ironically, I didn't care at all about the ancestors until everyone with a brain who could recall anything had died. THEN they all became (somewhat) interesting! haha. But mainly I'm interested in the Scottish ones, the others (which, again, ironically) I've got good records for back to the old countries are not very interesting to me.
I heard about that History channel show "Hatfields and McCoys" and my grandmother was a Hatfield from Arkansas, so likely she was related to those famous feuding ones.
I'm sure we are meandering off topic now, but I do want to say that your story seems really interesting, having Scottish ancestry (as do I and certainly as does my Scottish DH), and also we've been watching the Hatfields and the McCoys--so I'll be watching future episodes with YOU in mind, Iris Lilly!
That's always the way--genealogy seems to be a passion of the middle-aged, so all the resources are gone by the time you know which questions to ask. Like "So did Grandmother know her mother was moldering away in the asylum?" "Why didn't G-g at least get a decent burial?" (As far as I can tell, she's in an unmarked can on a shelf somewhere.) We were always told some vague cock and bull story about what happened to her. "Warts and all" is fine with me. I have plenty of hard-working, sober, responsible types in my background, but it's the outliers that make things interesting. Also, most of the details that make people worth knowing about are forever lost to time. I'm hoping the Internet will temper that in the future.
I normally avoid this forum very carefully but somehow was pulled in, probably due to the new previewing function in the What's New area. I am glad I was...this was most certainly worth the read. Great family stories.
flowerseverywhere
5-31-12, 10:34pm
[QUOTE=catherine;83994]I'm sure we are meandering off topic now QUOTE]
yes we are, but it has had some very interesting topics. If you want to listen to a fascinating story about Scottish history find Outlander on disc at your library. The narrator is just so engaging, and the story is terrific. It is very long and although the series was very popular it would be quite tedious to read, like Game of Thrones was. But it is great. We are on book 2, Dragonfly in Amber. She also wrote a book "the outlandish companion" which explains a lot as well as the authors personal story (and how she came to write the books) which is fascinating.
flowerseverywhere
5-31-12, 10:36pm
by the way, how curious no one defended the loser of the lawsuit, who could not collect benefits for her twins. Maybe it is a sign of how worn out we have all become.
[/ QUOTE]
yes we are, but it has had some very interesting topics. If you want to listen to a fascinating story about Scottish history find Outlander on disc at your library. The narrator is just so engaging, and the story is terrific. It is very long and although the series was very popular it would be quite tedious to read, like Game of Thrones was. But it is great. We are on book 2, Dragonfly in Amber. She also wrote a book "the outlandish companion" which explains a lot as well as the authors personal story (and how she came to write the books) which is fascinating.
I take it you haven't heard Ishbel, our Edinburgh voice, speak about Diana Galbadon's works. She is most emphatically not a fan and would have to take you to task about viewing that series as "Scottish history." Sorry, couldn't resist.:laff:
flowerseverywhere
6-1-12, 8:06am
I take it you haven't heard Ishbel, our Edinburgh voice, speak about Diana Galbadon's works. She is most emphatically not a fan and would have to take you to task about viewing that series as "Scottish history." Sorry, couldn't resist.:laff:
I hadn't. I hope she chimes in. At least she answers the question what men wore under their kilts! Or I think she does, who knows.
I can believe like most historical fiction great liscense is taken to tell the story and like many historical novels done strictly on research into another time and country it would vary much from a native historian's viewpoint. But it is wildly entertaining.
by the way, how curious no one defended the loser of the lawsuit, who could not collect benefits for her twins. Maybe it is a sign of how worn out we have all become.
Or maybe it's just a sign of how reasonable most everyone really is. :) We (the general we) are really more alike in most things than many would like to acknowledge.
Or maybe it's just a sign of how reasonable most everyone really is. :) We (the general we) are really more alike in most things than many would like to acknowledge.
+1 peggy. The simple truth is that most of our debating revolves more around how to get something done than it does around what to do.
I heard about that History channel show "Hatfields and McCoys" and my grandmother was a Hatfield from Arkansas, so likely she was related to those famous feuding ones.
That explains alot, Iris. ;)
How did people manage to grow old in this country *before* the government stepped in to hold everybody's hands?
Well, they died younger and in more pain. At least in my family.
I didn't defend the loser because I don't think she should have won...she chose to have two children after her husband died. She's a single mother by choice - her kids are NOT survivors.
This is an interesting thread with the whole "taking care of extended family" thing. I will admit that it's not my thing. Then again, it doesn't have to be. I live 1000's of miles from my family. My father died in 07, my mom just died in December. She drank herself to death. My husband's family has a lot more longevity (he grandmother is 93), but she's in a home. My MIL (who is her DIL) visits her regularly, despite being separated. Now...how do I feel about his family? His mom, I would support and help out in a minute. His dad, who cheated and abandoned her after 43 years of marriage? Not so much. She's picked up, moved on, went back to work part time to make ends meet. He retired from lawyering (home town lawyer), travels, buys gadgets, and complains that he doesn't have any money. His lawyer friends keep offering him small cases, but no "I'm retired".
I have some good friends from China. It's just "expected" that my friend and her sister send their parents money every month. Even though they gamble it away. Come to think of it, her dad left her mom for a younger woman, and her mom moved back to China, and her sister divorced her husband...so, I don't know if she's supposed to send money to both parents separately or what?
I think one issue I have with money from the government - whether it be SS that you've "earned" or welfare or whatever - is that there is no face attached to it. It becomes your "right". So while lots of people still take care of themselves, work hard, etc., it becomes easier for others to just drift along. I don't know how to fix that.
Simpler at Fifty
6-3-12, 1:08pm
..she chose to have two children after her husband died. She's a single mother by choice - her kids are NOT survivors.
I could not have said that better.
It was a unanimous decision based on a very rational approach in applying very straightforward federal rules and state statutes. This is no liberal cause celebre and it never will be. There are not many children in this situation and they certainly don't have the political clout of people who love unborn children more than actual children, hedge fund managers and energy barons. I read every liberal blog there is to read and no one has so much as mentioned this case. So your assumption that the people who love to take your money away to care for other people would pounce on this in order to impovrish you even more...seems to be incorrect.
The ruling was correct but in the end the children may suffer, as they often do. But hey, they sure knew what to do back in the day, right? Take kids away to foster care or orphanages, put them to work in big manor houses and coal mines, throw families in debtor prisons or the poorhouse. Life was so much better back then when our families just took care of everything and there was no big gubmint nanny state taking our money!
... So your assumption that the people who love to take your money away to care for other people would pounce on this in order to impoverish you even more...seems to be incorrect.
Well you referenced it: not enough political clout from this group. Yet.
It is truly too bad that children suffer from the inane actions of their parents. The gooberment is a poor nanny.
I didn't defend the loser because I don't think she should have won...she chose to have two children after her husband died. She's a single mother by choice - her kids are NOT survivors.
Not much else to say, is there? Do feel sorry for the kids. Victims of their mother's {fill in the blank}.
ApatheticNoMore
6-4-12, 1:16pm
Not much else to say, is there? Do feel sorry for the kids. Victims of their mother's {fill in the blank}.
If they are truly poor I figure they may very well qualify for AFDC welfare. That's not Social Security and it comes with a LOT more strings (they force they mother to look for work now for one thing). Plus if they are really low income they will probably qualify for other things: food stamps, etc.. That's not to claim that benefits for the poor are particularly generous, merely that some exist. They aren't even in the category of those who are poor and tend to COMPLETELY fall through the cracks (usually childless and can't find work etc. etc.).
I mean of course they wanted Social Security, not the same kind of strings on being truly needy on looking for work etc. as welfare programs. But there are just so many reasons why letting them qualify for that would be an unfair application of that law. 1) It was never intended for such situations 2) why should those kids qualify for it, when the kids of a woman whose husband died and who later gets impregnanted by another man (in or out of wedlock, him being a millionaire on unable to find a job - it really doesn't matter) WOULDN'T QUALIFY? I mean is there ANY essential difference in the two situations? Heck no. Just genes, and that's a lame lame argument. That government benefits SHOULD be applied without arbitrary favoritism is just DUH. That doesn't preclude having benefits exclusively for the poor (that's a safety net and minor income redistribution), it simply precludes arbitrary favoritism - where that mother isn't favored over my hypothetical mother for no good reason at all.
Really how does a situation even reach the point where you think about your possible demise enough to freeze your sperm!!!! (who thinks like that, really?!) but not enough to provide for your future post-humous kids financially which would seem far more basic.
I don't think it's inherently wrong to freeze sperm, eggs, or zygotes for future use--it seems like a logical course for people who really want to have biological children under these circumstances. And though these children likely would be better off with both parents in their lives, I don't feel sorry for them or think they shouldn't have been born. I do hope their mother is resourceful enough, with some kind of support system, to make a comfortable home and secure future for them and for herself.
If they are truly poor I figure they may very well qualify for AFDC welfare. That's not Social Security and it comes with a LOT more strings (they force they mother to look for work now for one thing).
There are people in our society that think it is terrible that a mother (in the most elective way possible, BTW) would ever have to look for work as a qualification to receive benefits she did nothing to earn beyond being voluntarily inseminated to produce offspring. You can just feel the ground crumble under your feet when those people talk. I understand the possible emotional connection to her late husband, but if she couldn't afford to raise kids on her own she shouldn't have any. Period.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.