To: epicure who wrote (49367 ) 6/7/2002 11:31:53 AM From: The Philosopher Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486 That might be a somewhat difficult standard to codify with specificity enough for a court to enforce on a case by case basis. Obviously a written statement would be best. But suppose this guy had intentionally wanted to make babies with three women instead of just one. Would all three children/families be entitled to SSA benefits? I suppose you could say it would be handled the same was as though he had personally impregnanted each of the women. But still, frozen sperm can last quite awhile, so a kid could come along years after the guy's death (as this kid did) and claim benefits that had already been parceled out. And suppose a man has one natural child by woman A, then has a written statement saying that he intends to have woman B carry his artificially inseminated child so that he clearly meets any standard you want to set, then he dies intestate so that child A is now the only heir. Woman B say she intends to get pregnant with her sperm, but only after she finishes college and law school, in five years. Would the estate have to wait to be distributed until the woman had tried to get pregnant and either succeeded or all the sperm was used up? I see a host of difficulties here. Right now, the law is pretty clear in two kinds of cases. In the case of a married couple, the child is the husband's if created with his frozen sperm. If a non-spouse's frozen sperm is used, the non-spouse has no parental rights or responsibilities and the child is the legal child of the husband. But once you go beyond those, it gets murky, particularly when a deceased guy can be fathering children for years.