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 - - -
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.Point in fact, two of the three residing judges are wrong, as @Mehrunes has pointed out
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.
Last edited by Kasierith; 2019-04-02 at 11:25 PM.
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.
Last edited by Kasierith; 2019-04-02 at 11:36 PM.
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.
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 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.
The very first line in your responses to me. And to clarify so you're aware, add hominem doesn't mean insult.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 biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.
It is mentioned that the judges discuss the intent so.. unless they are talking about the dinner plans that would be it.
- - - Updated - - -
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?
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.
Last edited by Mistame; 2019-04-03 at 04:36 AM.
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.
O Flora, of the moon, of the dream. O Little ones, O fleeting will of the ancients. Let the hunter be safe. Let them find comfort. And let this dream, their captor, Foretell a pleasant awakening
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.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...OA-Embryos.pdfOriginally Posted by Court Opinion II. 33.
I still do not agree with the decision but no longer can I argue it is not legally sound.
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.