From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:56:30 GMT

In article <19503@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.043425.20323@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <19496@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (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.  

The act which the contract purports to allow is criminal in nature. The
only workable interpretation is one which limits itself to incidental 
civil suits.

>>>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."  

Big deal. I see no practical difference between agreeing to not file suit,
on the one hand, and being absolutely barred from winning that suit, on the
other.

>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.

That cannot workably be interpreted as permitting a crime to committed. She 
cannot agree to contractual terms that make her an accessory to a crime.

>>>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.

Incorrect. The good and valuable consideration from the man in the case of 
the variation of the so-called "pre-sex contract" I advocated consisted of:

	o  Subsidy of abortion costs, if the mother chooses the abortion option

		or
	
	o  Complete waiver of all the man's custody and visitation rights, if 
	   the mother exercises her option of carrying to term and taking 
	   custody of the child

Both of those are valid consideration. The latter, while not of discernible
concrete, tangible value, would nonetheless be valuable to a woman who wished 
to raise a child without fear of the man's "interference".

>>>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.

That is an offense against the Common Good, not just an individual. It is a
criminal matter, and beyond her power to contract for or against.

>>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?

A civil suit would seem to be barred by the terms of the contract. As for the
inability of the justice system to secure a criminal conviction of the man,
justice occasionally, if you'll pardon the semi-pun, miscarries. I would find 
it hard to believe, though, that a jury wouldn't sympathize with the woman's 
loss, however -- unless, of course, it was stacked with Matthew Rosenblatt 
clones all trying to make the same debating point.

>>. . . 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.  

You don't seem to have read what I said. I said I'd let her waive her rights
to file a civil suit. I never said I'd let her waive her rights to willingly
bear children...

>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.

It has nothing to do with "Female Privilege" [sic] or status, Rosenblatt.
Her right to choose whether or not to bear children falls under the Right
to Privacy. Civil suits are another matter, since they are mostly pecuniary
concerns, and don't inherently infringe on the Right to Privacy.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal