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."
I understand all of your concerns about this. Sure, it is hard to think of this poor little boy without a father. It is also hard to imagine the grief of this mother and her desire for a baby.
Personally, I don’t believe in scientific procreation, and I do beleive that children should have a mother and a father.
However, had this little boy been conceived before his father was killed, he would still be raised without one. There are many children being raised in that situation these days. I completely understand why this woman wanted to do what she did, and I can’t find fault with it.
This little boy will grow up knowing that his mother and father wanted him enough to plan ahead for any possible occurance. He will know that his Mommy was courageous enough to try raising him alone. He will also grow up knowing that his Daddy was a brave man that gave up his life for this country. That is a lot more than most children get from life.
I find this a circumstance of questionable ethics and motives bordering on necrophilia or a worship of the dead. It's horrible her husband died but it's just as horrible to go against God and Nature and create a child which could not exist and who will have no father with full knowledge of this key point before conception!
I'm horrified at how many see this as some kind of selfless, loving tribute and don't think of the fatherless child she's brought into the world.
She got the child she wanted, I only pray she remembers the child's welfare along the way.
When you go down the path of what human science can enable you need to challenge yourself on the morality and ethics involved and wonder if you should take that path. There are few places more tempting than the frontiers of fertility science which have brought us such barbarism as vanity children for single mothers, RU-486 and even the callously termed "selective reduction," en-mass abortions when too many implanted embryos appear viable.
Thinking of the unconceived fatherless child, the "right" answer would have been to thaw the sperm and accept the reality of her husband's death and their inability to produce a child within their marriage epoch just like generations of widows before her. If she still wanted a child she could seek a new mate or consider a foster care or adoption situation.
Faulty logic. She knew ahead of time the father was pre-deceased before conception, the other women did not. There's no parallel to be drawn.
It might be imprudent to conceive ahead of deployment to a war zone but the fact remains a KIA is a rare event compared to the conflicts of past generations. Generally, we can never be sure both parents will be alive and healthy for the child's birth but she knew, like Hollywood's single mommies and their vanity babies, before conception.
Doesn't matter if you can "understand" her pain, that's empathy. It's no justification to go ahead with activities she did and bring a new life into the world.
The day-to-day influence of a father on the child would make far more positive difference in his life than some pleasant myth about his dad coupled with the bizarre circumstances of his conception. She knew ahead of time. She decided he didn't need a dad in his life.
I say she's not courageous to try to raise him alone, she's quite selfish!
She had perfect knowledge that his father was dead before conception! This isn't a widow who lost her mate one month or eight months into a pregnancy or even a year or more into the child's life.
While I agree with you that there is an ideal circumstance for procreation (mother and father in comfortable circumstances etc.) I disagree that this is “abomination”. This mother chose to give birth and to bear the child of the man she loves. I cant imagine she would ignore any obligation she has taken on with this child. It was a thought-out decision on her part.
Like it or not, artificial procreation is a fact of our modern culture and, and as in any other gift we have been given, it can be abused. I don’t believe this case is an abuse.
God bless this widow and the son of this hero.
...and now I know why I fight an uphill battle every time I try to convert my agnostic friends to Christianity.
More power to her. She loved her husband and wanted his child and was able to accomplish it.
I have mixed feelings about this.
I understand the wanting to remember her husband and wanting a child. But two questions;
1) Will the military have to provide survivors benefits?
2) Is the child eligible for Social Security survivors benefits?
It is reverse Eugenics... the weak and infirm stay alive to reproduce, while the strong die...
I have a sincere question for any parent who questions this womans decision and motivation. Why and when did you decide to have a baby? Were there not other parents who were more appropriate than you to procreate? Did you think you were doing your child a favor by giving birth to him or her in less than perfect circumstances?
I don’t have children so I have never had to seriously ask myself these questions and I am not baiting anyone here. I honestly don’t understand the attitude in this or other similar cases that this woman is being selfish. I cannot think of one child who was born into ideal circumstances. Parents do the best they can with what they have and perhaps that is where children learn their most important lessons about loving and family.
Of course it would be great if this little boy’s daddy were still alive, but should he not have been born because the circumstances weren’t perfect? Is non-existence better than a less than perfect life?
Unless I am totally wrong here, most children are conceived and born for ultimately selfish reasons.
Help me out!
Of course, I'd disagree with you.
sw
Off subject, but the best friend of a gal I worked with was employed by Cryobank, and she'd feed me some of their promotional trinkets...nifty stuff, such as ink pens that looked like test tubes, complete with little spermy snow-globe kind of attachments.
I still use their little alarm clock; the second hand is a swimming "seed"...
Frankly I don’t care. His father is a patriot who gave his life for his country. That’s a lot more than I can say about the abundance of government freeloaders who have spent generations living off the taxpayers dime. He will never know his father but at least the reasons are honorable.
I hope as he grows up he will see the example set by his father & understand the sacrifice he made. And if benefits are provided for others I see no reason why they couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be provided for him.
'Mixed emotions'....I think its telling of the times we live in when a woman somewhere in Texas that has a baby by her late husband causes someone to think they need to tell the woman what to do...or to think we need to have an opinion one way or another. Give me a break. Its her business.
Wow, with all the problems in this country, you call this woman, having a baby after her husband died, an abomination. Sorry, I just don’t get that. More than 50% of the kids in this country are raised in single family/divorced homes.
You really lost me when you said that the father being brave and sacrificing his life for his country was a pleasant myth. Sorry, but I value the sacrifice our soldiers far more than that. I could understand saying this woman made a mistake, but your self-righteous and arrogant comments are way over the top.
Excuse me. We express our opinions all the time in this forum.
Silly us.
I find it weird because the man is dead. Just because something is technologically possible does not mean it is good.
Should we save sperm and eggs for centuries so that a person can meet their great-great-great-great grandfather’s son? I think not.
Year ago a woman from LA did this same thing then sued to collect SS. If I remember correctly, she won.
I consider this a little odd also but if this were my son that died in Iraq I'd thank the Lord for providing me with a grandson.
A very fabulous post!
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.