Melissa Amen conceived her 3-year-old daughter, Kayah, seven days after Kayah's father died of cancer.
"It's my miracle," the 28-year-old Nebraska resident told FoxNews.com. Melissa and her husband, Joshua, struggled for two years to have a child before she conceived through intrauterine insemination. Joshua had stored his sperm in a bank in case treatments for his cancer rendered him sterile. They were planning to raise a family together despite his three-year battle with cancer.
Now Amen faces her own battle: Winning Social Security benefits for Kayah from a federal government that, in essence, doesn't recognize Joshua as the father.
The Social Security Administration denied Melissa's application seeking survivor benefits for Kayah because she was conceived after the death of her father.
Let me be very clear. I feel bad for this woman, as I would anyone who has lost a spouse. One of our blogging friends herself lost her spouse and it is a horror none of us would want to face.
I also understand her wanting to have a child with him. The inability of them to be able to have a child is one of the things she was robbed of by his death from cancer.
With that said, should someone in this circumstance be able to get Social Security benefits for the child?
Is the child, as a biological heir of her father, entitled to his survivor benefits?
Or is this a case of a woman making a decision and now having to live with it, morally and financially?
Does it matter if it were, as some of the cases mentioned, the child of a man killed in combat?
What about a police officer or fireman killed in the line of duty?
What about other benefits?
What do you think about this?