Social Security Benefits for what???

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Social Security Benefits for what???
8
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 8:03pm

For children conceived after the death of a parent. Yes, this is becoming an issue more often these days. Is this what social security survivor benefits were supposed to be used for? Should this be permitted? What do you think?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19661&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

I think they were put in place to help give protection to children conceived while the parent (father) was alive. Choosing to have a child by a father who is deceased is a choice that is made after you know the child will be fatherless. I don't think this is what society intended social security survivor benefits to be used for.


>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2009
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 8:10pm

I think if you choose to conceive a child AFTER the other parent has died then you have no realistic expectation of that parent supporting the child. We might just as well give benefits to parents who use a sperm bank or maybe every single parent - NOT!

This lib does not support this!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 8:38pm

No, not an appropriate use of SS benefits.

Deborah

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-30-2010
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 8:39pm
Neither does this one. I think this world is getting crazier and crazier every day.
Liberal
Liberal
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2008
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 8:41pm
I disagree with this. If a person is pregnant and the other parent dies..then I think the child should get benefits. However, a person being already deceased and then a pregnancy occurs...no. It's a choice one parent enters with the full knowledge the other parent is already deceased and hence cannot contribute to the raising of a child. The resulting child should not get the benefits of their deceased parent, who knows if the deceased parent would even agree to having a child?
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 9:12pm
I don't think SS survivor child benefits should be available for children conceived after or embryos implanted after the death of the parent. As a general rule, one parent would likely know that the other parent has died. IMHO it is gaming the system to choose to implant or conceive after the death of one "parent" in the hopes of receiving SS. Plus, it isn't only the surviving child who can receive a benefit. The surviving widow/widower can also receive a benefit depending upon his/her income and the age of the surviving child. This is a case of where we need to update our laws to reflect changing technology.

~OPAL~

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 9:45pm
This may be much more important than first glance. American women have become used to having benefits for becoming pregnant. However, there are no financial fitness tests (nor for families either) yet in many earlier societies it was the responsibility of the couple to prepare for financial times.

xvx Pictures, Images and Photos


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 10:05pm

>>The resulting child should not get the benefits of their deceased parent, who knows if the deceased parent would even agree to having a child?<<

Well the argument from the woman in the example who was given benefits and now has been told they have to pay them back is: the father was obviously hoping to conceive a child by virtue of the fact that he'd banked the sperm in the first place and only that he died before they could attempt to use it.

I'm thinking though that if you want to cover this angle maybe life insurance is a better plan. The point is the woman can now chose not to bring the life into the world if she's going to have to rely on the government to support it.

But I wonder. I once suggested that parents who continually have medically needy kids (due to genetic issues) should not be allowed to let their right to have medically needy children be a burden on society. It's one thing to have a child who ends up with issues you really had no way of knowing about and then having medicaid pay for those issues but it's another to told you have significant risk of conceiving more children with the same issues and choosing to do it anyway. It just seems extremely self-centered; not in a child's best interest or society's.

I respect their right to freedom in this case but I think it should be limited when it comes to purposely burdening society--then again we have a child thrown out as an excuse for doing so. I think at the time the people in questions had just had their third child with severe immune system issues and had to live in a "bubble".


>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2008
Wed, 08-04-2010 - 10:48pm
Yes..I do think life insurance is a much better route. I have it...so does my DH and we have it for the kids too (heaven forbid). We don't have the recommended amount salary wise but we do have it.
Personally I am in no way comfortable with saying to anyone..you do not have the right to have a child. My pro-choice stance goes both ways. The right to have or not to have a child should in no way be hampered by the government, within reason that is.
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket