Posted on 10/19/2007 7:19:10 AM PDT by martin_fierro
Two years after US soldier's death, widow has his son
by Virginie Montet and Stephane Delfour-Given Fri Oct 19, 2:40 AM ET
AUSTIN, United States (AFP) - Fifteen-month-old Benton is the spitting image of his father, a US soldier who died in Iraq two years before his son was born.
"He looks so much like his father, it's kind of scary," his mother Kathleen Smith told AFP, as she talked about her unusual decision to have her soldier-husband's baby posthumously, using semen frozen before he was deployed.
"Benton is the child Brian and I could have had. I have part of what Brian and I could have had -- part of my dream was possible even after he died," Smith, 42, said.
"My husband and I had talked about the probability of needing to do in vitro fertilization because I already had a fertility issue. That's why he went to a sperm bank before he went to Iraq," she said.
Smith is not the only US soldier to have semen frozen and held at a sperm bank before deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Many have done so not because they fear they will be killed but because of the risk they would be injured or exposed to chemicals during deployment which could affect their fertility.
"There was a slight increase in military storage in 2003," said Tanya Peebles, spokeswoman for Cryobank, one of the biggest sperm banks in California.
Storage of sperm usually costs 365 dollars a year.
But Cryobank ran a special offer that year, with "semen collection and storage services at a substantially reduced cost, with the first year storage provided free of charge" to military personnel who were about to be deployed to Iraq.
The aim of the promotional offer was "to help ensure the future of their families," according to the advertisement.
However, the widows of soldiers who choose to make the same decision as Kathleen Smith can be counted on the fingers of one hand, the US department of Veterans' Affairs said.
Spokesman Jim Benson said the department knew of only four such cases.
A medical professor at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Washington, who asked not to be named, agreed women who seek to have their late husband's baby are a rarity, and expressed doubt as to whether it was a good idea.
"It's very uncommon. And I don't think it's a good thing, or that it will become more common," he said.
"The problem is regret -- regret is high for those women," he said. "What happens when she meets someone else?"
"The other question is ethical: the guy hadn't planned to die so he didn't say you could use his sperm," the doctor said.
Smith has no regrets, and Benton has also managed to bring round his grandparents, who were initially against their slain son's widow having his baby after his death.
"His mom was against it. But she's wonderful now. She loves her little boy, her grandson," said Smith.
"Brian and I never discussed whether I would have a child if he died," she added.
"When he died, I was 40 and it's not like I had time to look for another person to be with and to have a child. If I was 10 years younger, it would have been a different situation."
She looks on her son as a blessing and "something good that came out of the war," which she stopped supporting when her husband was killed.
"My opinion about this war has changed, with regard to Brian's death," Smith said. "In the beginning, I was supportive of the war, but at this point I want our guys home."
Kathleen Smith and her son Benton in Austin,Texas. Fifteen-month-old Benton is the spitting image of his father, a US soldier who died in Iraq two years before his son was born. Smith had her soldier-husband's baby posthumously, using semen he had frozen before he was deployed.(AFP/Stephane Delfour-Given)
Cammie overalls, I like that..........
This seems weird to me.
This seems a bit creepy.
"The problem is regret -- regret is high for those women," he said. "What happens when she meets someone else?"
"The other question is ethical: the guy hadn't planned to die so he didn't say you could use his sperm," the doctor said
This is unbelievable....is it their business to decide? Why are they so quick to challenge something like this?
This seems a bit creepy.
What’s weird about it? This is a technological miracle that was unavailable to soldiers in past wars. .....
Ordinarily I’m opposed to women having children alone, but this case is a little different. For one thing, the guy banked his sperm before leaving for Iraq, so clearly this is something he wanted—he wanted to leave a legacy, wanted an heir. It’s no different really than if he had the child before he went to Iraq and died.
Creepy how? That she still loves her husband, that even now after he's passed she would like to see his life continue through their son? What's so creepy about that?
How many of these guys that would do this would tell their wives no, if they could? IMO, most would probably say “ It’s your decision”. The media has no business here.
It is a miricle. In the past that would have been the end of his line. She is quite a woman to do this and I pray she is greatly blessed. His name will be remembered and she has the child that she wanted.
It is a great triumph and absolutely no credit to the liberals.
It seems to me that in this case her bigger concern was the fact that her “time” was running out.
I think children need a mother and a father. This sort of thing, however noble the intent, just doesn’t seem the way to go.
I will acknowledge, however, that mileages may vary. I’ll even acknowledge, as difficult as it may be to believe, that I might be wrong.
I don't think that has ever been uttered in the history of Teh Intarweb.
Imagine how many “good” genes were lost to wars while the “bad” genes were allowed to proliferate. Think about it. Brave men who will actually fight for freedom and protection of the homeland get reduced in numbers, while the ones who won’t get to stay at home and spread their DNA around the populace. It’s Darwinian.........
i think it’s great. i am sure this woman, rather than regretting it, will look upon her son, every day of his life, as a miracle.
I was wrong once, but I was mistaken...............
Oh come on. You don’t, here on a conservative forum, understand why another conservative would consider this creepy?
It’s obvious by the comments that many of us have mixed emotions about it.
What’s even more telling, as I said in another comment, is this woman’s concern about her clock running out.
My question...if she was, say, 30...would she STILL have used the frozen sperm or would she have taken the time to meet another guy, something she alluded to if you read her words?
It’s a normal conservative reaction to give pause to any concept of deliberately bringing children into the world with it well known that there would no father around to help raise it.
Male humans do more than provide a sperm cell in the raising of the young...not that I should have to state the obvious in this forum.
If you don’t think a female welfare recipient should be bringing fatherless children into the world what’s the justification here?
I’ll end with a reminder that I am happy for this woman and proud of her husband who made the ultimate sacrifice.
I have mixed emotions and I am not ashamed to say so.
For whatever reason it’s her decision though. My only concern is that she lives in Austin:’)
Plus the child will be eligible for survivoring child’s benefits from Social Security for the next 18 years.
I pity the boy and wish him all the best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.