Karen Caputo gave birth to twins through in vitro fertilization using the frozen sperm of her late ...

1. The Social Security Administration denied the benefits, as did the first court hearing the
case and, eventually, n 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued that children
conceived posthumously, as here, could not inherit from the late father under that state's
law and the father had not provided for them economically during his lifetime. Thus they
also could not claim benefits from Social Security. Does this seem like an ethically
correct conclusion to you, given that the father had worked to earn Social Security
benefits during his lifetime and, presumably, had consented to use of his sperm after his
death? Should these children have any rights that are relevant in your considerations?
2. If the Supreme Court had reached a different conclusion and awarded the benefits to
these twins, would you anticipate future problems in this approach to awarding benefits
to children conceived through IVF? How should such children be provided for?