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

[Mehrunes]

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.

First of all, that observation was a general statement when you compared contractual decision of what to do with embryos in case of a divorce to slavery and murder. Both illegal and flat out unfeasible in contractual law. Which is a terrible comparison to dealing with embryos after partners part ways. Secondly, that's more of a background information. The more important post in context was my later remark that contracts can regulate this situation just fine (which is also a general statement)2. Which, again, the verdict itself mentions when it explores that aspect of the law. You denied it and said the judges disagree with my position. Which is false.

And since you sidestepped the question of your misrepresentation through cherry-picking, me saying that the judges agree with me on that general issue is not the same thing as me agreeing with the verdict about a specific case. I even explicitly mentioned in my reply to @Mistame that you cherry-picked from that those are separate matters.

And, on a side note, the contract wasn't actually dissolved in this case. Because, like I already mentioned, the balancing approach used by the court in this case is used in case of a lack of contract covering the issue, ambiguous wording of the contract or the contract containing the clause of leaving that decision to the court. Option A obviously wasn't the case here. And options B and C do not revolve around dissolving the contract, but, respectively, interpreting it and fulfilling it (the latter being the complete opposite of dissolving a contract). In this case, it was a combination of the two. So your claim that the judges disagreed with me in context of this subtopic managed to be wrong from multiple perspectives.

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.

For all your grandstanding of how knowledgeable and capable of understanding you are you somehow were not capable of realizing that at no point have I denied or even questioned that the verdict is lawful. Nor have I based my arguments simply on "the other side is wrong" or denied the capacity of the 2 judges of making valid argument. Hell, what I said outright contradicts that notion, as I mentioned they used the postulates of Davis v. Davis only partially, without saying anything about them falsifying or misrepresenting the parts that they did pay attention to (which would make their arguments based on those parts valid, just removed from context).

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

Thank you for your gracious efforts at making me more aware. But saying that you misunderstood something and addressing your arguments in order to point out the misunderstanding isn't really ad hominem. I mean, that "very first line" of mine was addressing your own observation on how people in the thread in general are misunderstanding the issue and are consequently conflating two different aspects into one.

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

Well, no. The law doesn't apply to this particular case as it was passed afterwards.

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?

Again, the entire text of the verdict doesn't mention even the word verbal, let alone any verbal agreements. Nor do the judges make any arguments indicating as such. And written and verbal contracts aren't the same thing because US uses parole evidence rule. And, again, you tried to conjure a verbal contract out of them merely discussing things. By your logic people negotiating written contracts prior to signing are making verbal contracts. And if your position on which contracts should be used (that stands in direct opposition of parole evidence rule) we'd have a world where courts would be boggled down by contract cases where people would try to force the positions established during negotiations in "verbal contracts" if they are more beneficial to them than the written contract.

The dissenting opinion.

Ie the legal argument that lost.

Except as the wording of @Flarelaine's post should have already made you realize, they were not talking about the dissenting opinion in that paragraph.

[Flarelaine]

The dissenting opinion.

Ie the legal argument that lost.

No. I linked you the entire court opinion and quoted the relevant paragraph. You could have looked at it before dismissing it out of hand.

Or you could have just read the single bloody sentence I quoted.

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

[Najnaj]

Again, the entire text of the verdict doesn't mention even the word verbal, let alone any verbal agreements. Nor do the judges make any arguments indicating as such. And written and verbal contracts aren't the same thing because US uses parole evidence rule. And, again, you tried to conjure a verbal contract out of them merely discussing things. By your logic people negotiating written contracts prior to signing are making verbal contracts. And if your position on which contracts should be used (that stands in direct opposition of parole evidence rule) we'd have a world where courts would be boggled down by contract cases where people would try to force the positions established during negotiations in "verbal contracts" if they are more beneficial to them than the written contract.

Holy hell man. Do you think a verbal agreement is only verbal if someone says the word verbal? What exactly did you think happened here? She told him they were going to buy milk and did a sneaky jerk off behind a van? Or did you think they did not discuss this at all and all of a sudden his sperm walked to the fertility clinic on their own?

- - - Updated - - -

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?

If no one is contesting it, as in this case, there is no need to prove it at all. Otherwise it varies from case to case. Again, this is really basic shit that you ca just google.

[Katchii]

Yeah after reading the court document, I see why the decision was made. The agreement they signed explicitly gave the courts the right to decide on the disposition of the embryos. I still don't agree that the "sperm donor" as I'll call him here for ease of understanding, could or should be held financially liable for a child that resulted from this. The decision is explicitly about the disposition of the embryo, not about his being a father.

If the court had decided to give the embryos to a completely unrelated third party, I doubt this would even be part of the discussion.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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

I know...we were discussing the actual law though.

[Mormolyce]

No. I linked you the entire court opinion and quoted the relevant paragraph. You could have looked at it before dismissing it out of hand.

Or you could have just read the single bloody sentence I quoted.

Except as the wording of @Flarelaine's post should have already made you realize, they were not talking about the dissenting opinion in that paragraph.

Yeah my bad, I misread that post.

My fault for skimming.

[Flarelaine]

Yeah my bad, I misread that post.

My fault for skimming.

Yeah, it happens to all of us. Especially as I kinda switched course mid-thread after reading the opinion.

[Lochton]

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


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

Oh, you know the mom will take this to the court later and demand the 'father' to skip in a coin or hundred.

[Lahlah]

This is literally the equivalent of him being raped. The embryos should be destroyed not given to her just because SHE wants them. He agreed to using his sperm to fertilize the eggs because she wanted to use her ex-boyfriend's sperm instead of her husbands because HE didn't want to do it. The courts are wrong in this decision. This woman should not have custody of the embryos under any circumstances. And if you read the article, she only wants to implant them if she REMARRIES SOMEONE ELSE. That's bullshit!

While I agree that she should not be allowed to use these embryos this is most certainly NOT the literal equivalent of being raped. To even suggest such a comparison, even for dramatic effect, is careless.

[faithbane]

Says the original contract was made before the state law, so the law doesn't apply.

Thats not how laws work, many laws will apply retroactively.
If I buy a tank to drive on the road which is perfectly legal at the time, I don't get the say I bought the tank when it was legal so I should be able to drive it if they ban it later on.

Specifically laws that apply to contracts usually changed to amend problems that came up during a contract dispute so they will definitely apply to other contracts regardless of when it was signed.

[McFuu]

Thats not how laws work, many laws will apply retroactively.
If I buy a tank to drive on the road which is perfectly legal at the time, I don't get the say I bought the tank when it was legal so I should be able to drive it if they ban it later on.

Specifically laws that apply to contracts usually changed to amend problems that came up during a contract dispute so they will definitely apply to other contracts regardless of when it was signed.

That's from the judgement, the judges specifically said that. My assumption is it's a grandfathering of sorts, which does happen. Such as classic cars aren't required to have seat belts.

[faithbane]

That's from the judgement, the judges specifically said that. My assumption is it's a grandfathering of sorts, which does happen. Such as classic cars aren't required to have seat belts.

Yea I was thinking there would be contradicting examples as well but those are for things that can't be adjusted. Such as if you change the planning permissions in an area and only give permit for buildings that are X height and below, it doesn't mean you have to demolish the buildings that are above that height that already exists unless its a flight path/historic district enforcement or something.

In this case, it is a contract dispute so I doubt that can apply.

[jimboa24]

We do not know that.

Do you not understand how marriage laws work? In most states, if your wife gets pregnant and you remain married to her, it doesn't matter who the biological father is. As her husband YOU are held financially responsible for that child for life. The wife already decided that no matter what, her eggs were getting fertilized; it was either with her ex-boyfriend's sperm or her husband's. Either way, it was going to happen. So the husband insisted it be done with his sperm, because even though he didn't want kids, it would at least be marginally better that if he be forced to have them against his will, that they be biologically his.

[Najnaj]

Do you not understand how marriage laws work? In most states, if your wife gets pregnant and you remain married to her, it doesn't matter who the biological father is. As her husband YOU are held financially responsible for that child for life. The wife already decided that no matter what, her eggs were getting fertilized; it was either with her ex-boyfriend's sperm or her husband's. Either way, it was going to happen. So the husband insisted it be done with his sperm, because even though he didn't want kids, it would at least be marginally better that if he be forced to have them against his will, that they be biologically his.

They were not married. As a matter of fact they weren't even together for very long ...

[jimboa24]

They were not married. As a matter of fact they weren't even together for very long ...

Yes they were...this whole thing came out of divorce court.

Did you not even bother to read the article? He's specifically referred to as her ex-husband numerous times.

[Najnaj]

Yes they were...this whole thing came out of divorce court.

Did you not even bother to read the article? He's specifically referred to as her ex-husband numerous times.

Sry, been a while as you are semi necroing this thread. Anyway, what you are saying is working for the biological father as she specifically said that she will not use the eggs unless she gets married so ...