Widowed wife gives birth 2 years after husband killed in Iraq Options

[The Fanatic]

how is it different from if she were pregnant with the child before her husband went to war?

Well it is in an obvious way because she was fertilized after he died instead of before he died (if she were to become impregnated with his seed via whatever method necessary before he went off to war). However, I understand what you are getting at. To look at it from Jessica's moral perspective, is it acceptable to fertilize oneself artificially with the sperm of her husband who is now deceased and essentially no longer her husband. From this train of thought, one could argue that she conceived a child out of wedlock thus violating any moral convictions that person could hold in that respect.

To answer your question, I do not personally find it morally wrong for the widowed woman to conceive the child of her late husband. It is an honorable way to remember his sacrifice in the service of his country. However, I admit that this could possibly inflict some psychologically traumatic injury on the child. At least children who grow up in the typical single parent household know that their father/mother exists somewhere; even if they don’t have any particular interest in seeking a meaningful relationship.

[Testm0nkey]

I don't think it will be traumatic for the child unless the mother turns out sexually molesting the kid or whatever. Single parents families arent traumatic for children neither are gay couple families.

So many children need good homes its cruel to close off a section of the population from adopting them when they statistically make great parents. Also the fact that it is illegal and against the constitution to do this because of religious morality. Which is the only reason that that could happen. But in most areas gay couples can and do adopt

(but they cant in lubbock if i remember correctly - something our CPS representative was angry about)