http://www.kdge.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104673?feed=10 4673&article=4724573

In Vitro fertilization is very common today! And while it does seem a bit odd that the woman wants the sperm of hear dead husband, I don't think there is anything wrong with it AT ALL!
Thoughts?

Nope. Nothing wrong with it at all.

I don't see anything wrong with it either.

I have a friend in Denver that has 2 beautiful boys through in vitro.

Granted he and his wife are both still alive (at least they were on Thursday when I talked to them!) but I'd say go for it!

The weird part is not the In Vitro Fertilization because that is super common. The weird part is that she wants to use the sperm of her dead husband.

Radio Lab did a show on "Sperm" recently.
This was mentioned on this episode.

LINK

There is a lot frozen sperm in sperm banks that are from now dead men.

I look at it this way, if a widow wanted to have another child using In Vitro, which would feel like it's worth a shot - sperm from a stranger? ( Which she would likely have to use in a more traditional scenario ) or a sample from her husband? I'm glad she has this choice available - for the time being, at least.

Did anyone read the story?

It was not a spouse, it was a boyfriend/lover. She petitioned to have the sperm extracted AFTER his death. There had never been a sperm donation on his part. She managed to get the sperm extracted from HIS CORPSE... but the judge has not yet ruled on permitting it's use for conception.

I vote for weird!


There may also be legal complications... will the yet-unconceived child be heir to the dead man's estate? Did he have a significant estate?

You're right. It registered as " husband " when I read partner. There are enough questions to warrant a legal decision, it looks like.

Ok, Stupid question, (call me an idiot if you'd like) But how is it possible to extract sperm from a dead guy???

Very carefully. You have to wait until rigor mortis sets in.

I hate the obvious jokes sometimes.

After Tdanner's explanation, I vote for weird too.

I didn't read the article, and like CJ I just assumed husband.

CJ, after the rigor mortis sets in then what?

Maybe in that New Year's Resolution thread, a promise of actually reading the links and the entire thread before posting would not be out of order. This thread borders on "poster boy for lazy posters."

Well just because a couple reasonable but relatively minor incorrect assumptions were made, and just because you thought of a couple possible variables that were not in the article were stated, doesn't change how I feel about being glad she's got an option. If there are sinister motivations at play, then I expect the court will try and sort that out.

In the end, I don't think my opinion is going to sway anything in this case.

Chicken - you have a really wild definition of "minor incorrect assumptions." We'll add them to the list that includes "They'll great us like liberators" ...

Yeah, I think that mistakenly calling the male in the equation her husband, when in fact it was her " Partner " is a relatively minor mistake. Have I yet to recognize a bigger one? It's possible.

This is slightly strange!

How do we know the boyfriend/lover wanted to have kids. So because he is dead, he gets no rights? What if the boyfriend/lover was very adamant in the fact that he didn't want to have kids?
This woman is one crazy broad!

Am I missing something? Why should we care whether he wanted kids or not, now that he's dead(and any concerns related to whether or not he wanted kids presumably died with him?)

Creepy and weird, perhaps.