NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21778

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 6.9 KB | 146 lines

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:34:25 GMT
Lines: 134

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>(Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>
>>>As such, I maintain the position that women have, by virtue of biology, an
>>>opportunity that men don't have. I maintain that women's ability to choose
>>>carriage or abortion deals in terms of the "inalienable rights" our society
>>>believes in on the whole.   [Bob Kirkpatrick]
>
>Yeah, that's Status Law.  Can a contract alter Status Law?

Oh, bull! That's not Status Law, that's the Right of Privacy. A woman's legal
right to choose has nothing to do with her "status".

>>>This leaves me with the position that if a person
>>>absolutely doesn't wish to be a dad (or mom), they need to be cautious way
>>>up front --before and during sex.
>
>>>I've heard the arguments about broken condoms, women poking holes in their
>>>diaphragms, all of that stuff. It still doesn't remove the responsibility
>>>that both (could be) parents need to go the distance in terms of prevention.
>>>[Bob Kirkpatrick]
>
>>Bob, in what way are the contracts being proposed and developed NOT
>>evidence of using foresight and "caution" in one's affairs? Surely you
>>don't oppose the idea of people talking about birth control and parenthood
>>before having sex, and coming to some sort of mutual agreement, do you?
>>Well, these contracts are simply an attempt to formalize those verbal
>>agreements. And no-one is obligated to sign them if they don't wish to.
>
>>Or, like Rosenblatt, do you believe in Female Privilege, specifically, the
>>Privilege to Change One's Mind About Parenthood, even if that privilege comes
>>at the expense of the man's property rights? To me, all Rosenblatt's bluster
>>about Female Privilege sounded like Looney Tunes. I didn't think anyone took
>>him seriously...   [Kevin Darcy]
>
>Yeah, Looney Tunes.  Let's see if a woman can alter her Status-Law-based
>Female Privilege by contract:
>
>  Fornication Contract:  The party of the first part, hereinafter
>  "Stud," and the party of the second part, hereinafter "Slut,"
>  for good and valuable consideration, agree as follows:  If
>  sexual intercourse between them results in pregnancy, Slut
>  hereby consents that Stud may use RU-486 to terminate such
>  pregnancy at a time and place of Stud's own choosing.

Do you understand the civil-suit/criminal-prosecution dichotomy, Rosenblatt?
When a man chemically assaults a woman, not _only_ can she sue him for civil
damages -- "pain and suffering", etc. -- but because he committed an act
against the Common Good, the state, the legal party known as "the people",
can ALSO exact punishment from him. And, unlike a civil suit, they can even
cause him to be incarcerated and forced to perform labor against his will.

Now, the contract you propose MAY obligate a woman to waive her right to
sue the man for civil damages, but by no stretch of the imagination does
it prevent the state from prosecuting him on a criminal charge, nor does
it bar her right (duty, actually) to report the crime.

>Now, not too many girls are gonna sign such a contract.  But suppose
>one does, and she gets pregnant, and subsequently word gets to Stud
>that she has Changed Her Mind and wishes to carry the pregnancy to
>term.  So Stud gets some third party, someone whom Slut would not have
>any reason to be wary of, to sprinkle RU-486 into Slut's salad or drink
>when she is not looking.  Slut miscarries her pregnancy, and later finds
>out what Stud did.  Slut sues Stud for "chemical assault & battery":
>"He killed my baby!  He killed my baby!"

No, she doesn't "sue" him for that, Rosenblatt; she reports the crime, and
he gets PROSECUTED for that in criminal court.

>Stud defends by citing the Fornication Contract:  "She consented to
>my altering her body chemistry with RU-486.

No, she only consented to waive her rights to file a civil suit.

>She consented in writing, for good and valuable consideration.

WHAT "good and valuable consideration"? You didn't specify what that was.
Love and affection? Sex? The former doesn't qualify as "valuable". The
latter is barred as consideration by prostitution laws. The contract is
unenforceable because it either a) lacks valuable consideration from the man,
or b) violates prostitution statute.

>How can she sue me for doing
>what she consented to my doing?"  Slut counters with, "Stud knew
>that I had Changed My Mind and withdrawn my consent.  I claim my
>Rosenblatt-supported Privilege to Change My Mind About Parenthood,
>which every girl has, contract or no contract.

No-one has the "privilege" to go back on a valid contract without suffering
the pecuniary consequences, Rosenblatt. Quit grasping at straws.

>My right to Change
>My Mind About Parenthood is *inalienable*, which means that no contract
>purporting to waive that right is binding on me."
>
>My guess is that Mr. Darcy would side with the Slut here against
>the Stud and uphold the very Privilege to Change One's Mind About
>Parenthood that he derides in his reply to Mr. Kirkpatrick.

You guessed wrong, Rosenblatt. My "side" is that the contract was never
valid in the first place, or, if it was, it only covered civil suits, and
doesn't protect the man from criminal prosecution for assault and battery.

>See,
>she can't contract to waive her sacred "right to bodily integrity"
>so as to permit him to foreclose the birth of an illegitimate child.

She can contract to waive her right to sue in civil court for a violation
of her bodily integrity, but since it's the STATE which protects her bodily
integrity against criminal invasions, she can't "waive" that.

>Mr. Darcy wouldn't let her waive *her own* rights.

Incorrect. I would let her waive her civil-suit rights. She "owns" them.
But she doesn't "own" her rights against criminal acts, so she's not in a
position to waive them.

>The only rights
>he'd let her waive by contract are *her unborn child's* rights to
>paternal support.  How convenient!

The child has an undeniable right to support, Rosenblatt, but no-one has
the right to violate another's body, physically OR chemically. This is not a
matter of "convenience", it's a matter of criminal law.

                                - Kevin

P.S. The above reflects only what I -understand- of the law. I do not
     profess any authority in legal matters, and gladly welcome any and all
     authoritative corrections.