NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21789

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 5.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!nsisrv!mimsy!afterlife!adm!smoke!matt
From: [e-mail] (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Summary: "Fornication Contract" is as invalid as "Pre-Sex Contract."
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:21:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.
Lines: 108

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Rosenblatt)
>writes:

>>  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.
>>
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>Do you understand the civil-suit/criminal-prosecution dichotomy, Rosenblatt?
>[Kevin Darcy]

Sure.  That's why my article made no mention whatever of criminal
proceedings against the man, but confined itself to what should
or should not happen in civil court if the Stud exercised his rights
under the contract even after word came to him that the Slut had
Changed Her Mind.

>>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!"

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

>No, she only consented to waive her rights to file a civil suit.
>[Kevin Darcy]

Read the "Fornication Contract" again:  "Slut hereby consents that
Stud may use RU-486 to terminate such pregnancy at a time and place
of Stud's own choosing."  The language she agreed to doesn't say
anything about "fil[ing] a civil suit."  It doesn't say anything
about her having the right to Change Her Mind (it doesn't have to,
because that right is inalienable, but more about that below).  It
says he can use RU-486 to terminate her pregnancy.

>>She consented in writing, for good and valuable consideration.
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>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.  [Kevin Darcy]

Aha!  Now the light is beginning to dawn for Mr. Darcy.  The "good
and valuable consideration" recited here is no different from whatever
"consideration" he would invoke to validate his "Pre-Sex Contract"
absolving the man from having to support his subsequently-born child.
If it's invalid for my "Fornication Contract," it's just as invalid
for his "Pre-Sex Contract."

>>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.  [Matt Rosenblatt]

>No-one has the "privilege" to go back on a valid contract without
>suffering the pecuniary consequences, Rosenblatt.  [Kevin Darcy]

It's not "pecuniary consequences" that she suffers.  The consequences
were that "He killed my baby!" -- as she contracted that he could do.

>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.

OK.  So suppose the prosecutor does not consider the case worth
pursuing.  Or suppose he does, but a Fully Informed Jury acquits
the man on the grounds that he was only exercising his Male Choice
rights to which the girl consented in her contract, and that it would
be unjust to enforce the assault-and-battery laws in a case like this.
Now, a civil suit is the only remaining avenue open to her to seek
justice because "He killed my baby!"  What would Mr. Darcy do about
such a civil suit?

Well, either the "Fornication Contract" was invalid for want of
consideration or because it violated the prostitution laws
-- in which case the "Pre-Sex Contract" is equally invalid --
or else the "Fornication Contract" was valid.  And if it was valid?

>. . . I would let her waive her civil-suit rights. She "owns" them.
>[Kevin Darcy]

I would not.  Yes, she "owns" her right to bear her baby, but unlike
many other rights, this one is *inalienable*, which means she cannot
give it away or bargain it away or sell it to another, even if she
wants to.  She can always Change Her Mind, and any just system of
justice will uphold her right to do so.  That's Female Privilege,
and she's entitled to it because she was born a girl.

                    -- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        ([e-mail])

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY