Arizona woman can use fertilized embryos to get pregnant without ex's consent

[Mehrunes]

Point in fact, two of the three residing judges are wrong, as @Mehrunes has pointed out.

Well, no. In regards to the specific point you quoted there it's Kasierith that's wrong. The judges agree with me. That their verdict is idiotic and treats its own legal basis fallaciously is another matter.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I didn't see any proof of a verbal agreement that exists, much less says it supercedes the contract??

- - - Updated - - -



Where does it explicitly say that? The article doesn't say anything like that.

There are court documents that mention the conversation.

It mentions this law at the end, but the law happened after this situation, so it's not relevant for this discussion.

[Mehrunes]

I didn't see any proof of a verbal agreement that exists, much less says it supercedes the contract??

There can be no proof that the verbal agreement here (that doesn't exist anyway) supersedes the written one because that'd be a direct contradiction of the parol evidence rule that US uses.

[Kasierith]

The judges agree with me.

So you agree with the judges that a contract does not hold up in this situation when pitted against her reproductive rights.

Unless you want to argue that one is a higher number than two.

- - - Updated - - -

This case demonstrates exactly why one should never agree to freezing fertilized embryos. In spite of the fact that a frozen, fertilized embryo is no different than separately frozen sperm and egg, there will always be idiots who follow the same bullshit and half-witted logic these judges did.

To be clear here, the embryos are equal parts of her and him. She has no more rights to them than he does. Her infertility is irrelevant in this regard

Not according to the presiding judges. Read their argument.

Point in fact, two of the three residing judges are wrong, as @Mehrunes has pointed out

Not how the American legal system works. Until/unless this decision is reversed, this is the standing interpretation of the law as it existed when they saw the case.

In other words, it is right because the highest judiciary authority to be in contact with the case said it was right. You can disagree with their arguments, but at the end of the day their arguments are lawful because that is how the legal system works.

Unless you want to argue that it is morally wrong. In which case, guess what.. I agree with you. I just recognize that it is legally, technically correct, and so the correct response is to update the law so that it is not so lopsided in who receives its protection.

[Mehrunes]

So you agree with the judges that a contract does not hold up in this situation when pitted against her reproductive rights.

Unless you want to argue that one is a higher number than two.

You're just being facetious right now.

[Kasierith]

You're just being facetious right now.

I'm not the one claiming that the judges are wrong and just arguing from emotion rather than following the law.

If you want to argue against how they applied the law, you should probably look at the dissenting opinion more. It goes much further than simply "what is the point of a contract if it can be voided so easily?" But you aren't doing that. Instead you're throwing out ad hominems and other warble garble in lieu of presenting why following that contract was important.

[Mehrunes]

I'm not the one claiming that the judges are wrong and just arguing from emotion rather than following the law.

No. Instead you're the one cherry-picking one sentence out of my post to get a shitty gotcha and completely failing at that. The post you replied to opened with me mentioning a specific point (that the judges agreed on with me). Go reread what that specific point actually was and only then come back to me. Preferably without childishly misrepresenting me again.

If you want to argue against how they applied the law, you should probably look at the dissenting opinion more. It goes much further than simply "what is the point of a contract if it can be voided so easily?" But you aren't doing that. Instead you're throwing out ad hominems and other warble garble in lieu of presenting why following that contract was important.

Are you even replying to the right person? I already told you I read the dissenting opinion. I already referred to the parts of the dissenting opinion that point out the faults of the verdict. That *gasp* weren't just "what is the point of a contract if it can be voided so easily" but things like the other two judges using the case they operated on as their basis for this verdict selectively. And please, what ad hominems?

[Oneirophobia]

"Italso states the other parent has no rights or obligations."


I hope that means he doesn't have to pay child support.

"And because that state law isn't applicable in this case, Terrell could end up having to pay child support if Torres gives birth to a child."

[Kasierith]

No. Instead you're the one cherry-picking one sentence out of my post to get a shitty gotcha and completely failing at that. The post you replied to opened with me mentioning a specific point (that the judges agreed on with me). Go reread what that specific point actually was and only then come back to me. Preferably without childishly misrepresenting me again.

The specific line of quotes began with my observation that there are issues where a binding written contract can be dissolved. Which the presiding judges did. And by doing so, showed that yes, a contract can be dissolved when pitted against reproductive rights, and remains in that state unless specifically reversed.

What is truly bothersome about this exchange is that my position on which argument is closer to the law is actually closer to the dissenting opinion. The difference is that 1) I'm capable of understanding that multiple sides can have valid arguments and not simply base my arguments on "the other side is wrong," and 2) recognize that because of how the US judicial system works their interpretation is lawful because they have made it lawful.

Are you even replying to the right person? I already told you I read the dissenting opinion. I already referred to the parts of the dissenting opinion that point out the faults of the verdict. That *gasp* weren't just "what is the point of a contract if it can be voided so easily" but things like the other two judges using the case they operated on as their basis for this verdict selectively. And please, what ad hominems?

The very first line in your responses to me. And to clarify so you're aware, add hominem doesn't mean insult.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Where does it explicitly say that? The article doesn't say anything like that.

It does actually:

State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.

[Thage]

"Italso states the other parent has no rights or obligations."


I hope that means he doesn't have to pay child support.

That would, logically, fall under obligations and even a bad lawyer could win that case if she tried to press for it in court.

[Najnaj]

Read the dissenting opinion. Why are the reproductive rights of the woman more important than the choices of the man, and the contract? Logically, how can you explain this?

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't see any proof of a verbal agreement that exists, much less says it supercedes the contract??

- - - Updated - - -



Where does it explicitly say that? The article doesn't say anything like that.

It is mentioned that the judges discuss the intent so.. unless they are talking about the dinner plans that would be it.

- - - Updated - - -

And given how the court doesn't mention it even once despite how significant to the case it would have been, you clearly pulled it out of your ass. Because @Lobosan was wrong. You don't just understand that written contracts take precedence over verbal ones (especially ones with no witnesses), you don't even understand what constitutes a verbal contract to begin with (hint: mere conversation on the issue does not cut it). Also, as per the text of the verdict, your claim that the case hangs on that one fact is also incorrect.

It is mentioned how the judges discuss it..and written or verbal is the same thing...one is easier to prove usually but that is a totally different story.

I mean, exactly what do you think happened here? Do you think there was one clear as shit contract with no issues at all and the judges just decided to chuck it for a laugh?

[Mormolyce]

A contract is a contract. Writing it down is exactly what gives it legal standing.

Whose word should I take on this, a judge's or some random guy on the internet's?

[Mistame]

Not according to the presiding judges. Read their argument.

Not how the American legal system works. Until/unless this decision is reversed, this is the standing interpretation of the law as it existed when they saw the case.

In other words, it is right because the highest judiciary authority to be in contact with the case said it was right. You can disagree with their arguments, but at the end of the day their arguments are lawful because that is how the legal system works.

Unless you want to argue that it is morally wrong. In which case, guess what.. I agree with you. I just recognize that it is legally, technically correct, and so the correct response is to update the law so that it is not so lopsided in who receives its protection.

I never said it wasn't "lawful". I said they are wrong. Bodily autonomy (including reproductive rights and the rights to one's own biological material) trump everything. And while it's not unheard of for laws and judges to be in conflict with that fact, it doesn't change it.

It does actually:

This case preceded the law and thus, the law does not apply.

[Flarelaine]

What part of "Writing it down is exactly what gives it legal standing" is 100% wrong did you have problems understanding?

That's not an argument, that's a handwave.

If two people have an agreement, how can either of them prove it to a court without having written it down?

[Kasierith]

I never said it wasn't "lawful". I said they are wrong. Bodily autonomy (including reproductive rights and the rights to one's own biological material) trump everything. And while it's not unheard of for laws and judges to be in conflict with that fact, it doesn't change it.

This case preceded the law and thus, the law does not apply.

A counterpoint to this that they brought up is that it is no longer his biological material. Upon fertilization a new, independent life is formed. This is the key thing they drew from Davis v Davis, where the lower courts ruling that a fertilized embryo constitutes it's own independent entity went unchallenged even if the ruling was displaced for other reasons.

In other words, he already committed the act. Now that his genetic material has been used to create a genetically unique embryo, now that the cats out of the bag, he can't reclaim it. At least, that's the argument that they drew upon in making their ruling.

As for bodily autonomy in terms of genes being untouchable, this is countered pretty heavily in cases of surrogate mother's refusing to abort despite the biological parents wishes.

[kasuke06]

A counterpoint to this that they brought up is that it is no longer his biological material. Upon fertilization a new, independent life is formed. This is the key thing they drew from Davis v Davis, where the lower courts ruling that a fertilized embryo constitutes it's own independent entity went unchallenged even if the ruling was displaced for other reasons.

In other words, he already committed the act. Now that his genetic material has been used to create a genetically unique embryo, now that the cats out of the bag, he can't reclaim it. At least, that's the argument that they drew upon in making their ruling.

As for bodily autonomy in terms of genes being untouchable, this is countered pretty heavily in cases of surrogate mother's refusing to abort despite the biological parents wishes.

Then at least according to your theory, the woman can't decide what to do with it either.

[Flarelaine]

Whose word should I take on this, a judge's or some random guy on the internet's?

Why, you can read the court opinion and find that they based their decision on the contract. What the original article omitted was a clause in it that agreed to court adjudication in the event of divorce.

As the dissent points out—and to which the majority agrees—contracts matter.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...OA-Embryos.pdf

I still do not agree with the decision but no longer can I argue it is not legally sound.

[Kasierith]

Then at least according to your theory, the woman can't decide what to do with it either.

Iirc the lower courts ruling in Davis was that the embryo should be granted to whoever wished to see it come to terms, as it had a fundamental self interest in perpetuating its existence. Something along those lines.

I suppose according to that, you could theoretically have custody battles over unborn embryos. Actually a funny thought.

[Mormolyce]

Why, you can read the court opinion and find that they based their decision on the contract.

The dissenting opinion.

Ie the legal argument that lost.