home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / soc / singles / 34913 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-29  |  1.3 KB
  1. Xref: sparky soc.singles:34913 alt.abortion.inequity:6210
  2. Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.abortion.inequity
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!Cadence.COM!stcroix
  4. From: stcroix@Cadence.COM (Bill St.Croix)
  5. Subject: Re: Choice as a Reason for not having a relationship(was: Pre-Sex Contract)
  6. Message-ID: <1992Dec28.231923.25821@Cadence.COM>
  7. Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
  8. References: <1gpcbcINNbtg@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Dec19.190616.15889@rotag.mi.org> <1h0it7INN2qc@gap.caltech.edu>
  9. Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:19:23 GMT
  10. Lines: 19
  11.  
  12. In article <1h0it7INN2qc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
  13. >
  14. >I don't "approve" of either a verbal or a written contract.  Nor do I 
  15. >think either would be enforceable in the current legal environment.
  16. >(Consider the mess over surrogate motherhood!)
  17. >
  18. >The point I was trying to make is that if people would talk more than 
  19. >perhaps we'd have fewer "accidents", and perhaps when "accidents" did
  20. >occur people wouldn't be quite so nasty.
  21.  
  22. And if people drove more carefully, we'd have fewer accidents too!  But,
  23. then again, that is why we have INSURANCE on our cars.  The Pre-Sex contract
  24. is just that...insurance, just like a pre-nuptial agreement/contract.  They
  25. work for some people and not others.  It's up to you to make your own
  26. choice as to what YOU want to do.
  27.  
  28.     Thanks,
  29.     Bill
  30.  
  31.