Quote of the Day - Women have more to offer this world than just a fallopian tube. Nothing is going to change until you quit looking at us as just sperm receptacles.
- Barbara Hall, Northern Exposure, Baby Blues, 1994
Here's the deal. Husband contracts cancer. Husband freezes sperm. Husband dies. Wife is fertilized with frozen sperm (don't ask me to get into the details). Wife (nee widow) has dead husband's twin babies 10 months after he's in the ground. You count the months.
So far, so good, except it gives me the willies.
Then, wife/widow gets the idea to apply for survivor's benefits. Huh? The new babies weren't surviving at the time the husband died. Other than perhaps existentially or metaphysically.
Biologically, at the time the husband died, each baby was only half of a whole.
But, the Ninth Circuit didn't see it that way. They ruled that the babies are entitled to have yours and my tax dollars support them. Ok, to be honest, the decision is based on Arizona's definition of "dependent," and the twins apparently fit that definition. Now we get to pay back seven years of two sets of survivor's benefits given that we've finally reached the end of the case.
It just sounds too weird to me. The courts are catching up with technology?
But to round things out, Massachusetts Supreme Court says that an after-death conceived baby can inherit from the deceased parent.
Will it ever end?