BJ -> Pregnancy -> Emotional distress???
-
Aquinas
- Grand Master Architecht
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:03 pm
No, not correct. Just because the contract results the delivery of something tangible, it does not mean that it is a contract for goods. And anyway, not all property is goods.
Example: I hire someone to build a house. Legally, this is a contract for services. If I contract to buy a built house, that is a contract for goods.
Second: What is the result of the contract? The delivery of a child. Is a child property? Absolutely not.
Example: I hire someone to build a house. Legally, this is a contract for services. If I contract to buy a built house, that is a contract for goods.
Second: What is the result of the contract? The delivery of a child. Is a child property? Absolutely not.
-
Alannia_Raindancer
- Prov0st and Judge
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 12:39 pm
Potentially:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/23/colb.embryos/
The article in question is a completely different can of worms, maybe a good debate for another thread, but I found this paragraph relevent to the topic at hand:
"In the case of fertility medicine too, the people who decide the "fate" of the property are typically the owners (the people from whom the eggs and sperm are taken or their designated beneficiaries). They can implant as many embryos as they wish, on the advice of a doctor, and they can freeze the ones they do not implant for as long as they like. Again, if the embryos are destroyed, their owners will have ordered that destruction and thus cannot complain."
So if fertilized embryos are the property of the persons who fertilized them, then one could potentially argue that this guy's sperm was someone's property too. The question becomes "who's?" and what liability does he have due to it's...unintended use. That's where the real court case would pivot, I would think.
Personally, I don't think this guy should be responsible for this child, because of the nature in which it was conceived. The woman is a wierdo. Had she gone to a sperm bank to be inseminated, she wouldn't be able to sue the donor for paternity. I'm not sure I see why this was any different, really. On the other hand, emotional distress, theft of property...I'm not seeing those as valid arguments on his side either. Absolution of responsibility after his sperm was utilized in a way that was misrepresented to him, definately, but I really don't know where the law sides on the "misuse" of biological material.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/23/colb.embryos/
The article in question is a completely different can of worms, maybe a good debate for another thread, but I found this paragraph relevent to the topic at hand:
"In the case of fertility medicine too, the people who decide the "fate" of the property are typically the owners (the people from whom the eggs and sperm are taken or their designated beneficiaries). They can implant as many embryos as they wish, on the advice of a doctor, and they can freeze the ones they do not implant for as long as they like. Again, if the embryos are destroyed, their owners will have ordered that destruction and thus cannot complain."
So if fertilized embryos are the property of the persons who fertilized them, then one could potentially argue that this guy's sperm was someone's property too. The question becomes "who's?" and what liability does he have due to it's...unintended use. That's where the real court case would pivot, I would think.
Personally, I don't think this guy should be responsible for this child, because of the nature in which it was conceived. The woman is a wierdo. Had she gone to a sperm bank to be inseminated, she wouldn't be able to sue the donor for paternity. I'm not sure I see why this was any different, really. On the other hand, emotional distress, theft of property...I'm not seeing those as valid arguments on his side either. Absolution of responsibility after his sperm was utilized in a way that was misrepresented to him, definately, but I really don't know where the law sides on the "misuse" of biological material.
Alannia Raindancer
65 Rangerette
Veteran Crew
Psycho Fr3@k of the conspIRaCy
65 Rangerette
Veteran Crew
Psycho Fr3@k of the conspIRaCy
-
Aabe
- Knight of the Brazen Hussy
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:47 pm
- Location: St. George, UT golf capital o th' world.
The sad reality, is that as a judge, often they just try to figure out what is best for the child, no matter how much he might personally want the child taken away and given to someone else.
I could easily see him just awarding the money so the kid had some reliable financial support. The kids mother sure wasn't a pillar of mental stability..
I could easily see him just awarding the money so the kid had some reliable financial support. The kids mother sure wasn't a pillar of mental stability..