No reproductive rights for men

[Tom Sawyer]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

He has a right to change his mind up until the point that a new agreement which doesn't require his consent is finalized and signed. If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and you're negotiating back and forth about what those benefits will be and you and your company can't come to an agreement, does that mean that you therefore agreed to the 10% cut without any corresponding benefits or does it mean that your old employment contract is still in effect and it hasn't been replaced by a new one? I think the latter.

Talking about what the terms of a new agreement would be doesn't constitute making a new agreement. He wanted something in exchange and that couldn't be given, so there was no new agreement.

 

[Metaphor]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

The plaintiff has the right to change his mind if that's what was agreed to originally, regardless of what the Court or anyone else finds.

By "agreed to originally", you're referring to the informed consent form from the clinic that does not constitute a contract? And that would have at any rate been superceded by a more recent oral agreement, the existence and content of which the plaintiff does not appear to dispute?

Since the informed consent form is a written agreement that was signed by both parties, I would say it very much does constitute a contract.

The 'oral agreement' was that he would allow implantation if his medical records were destroyed. That condition was never met. Or are you referring to something else?

However, I have no problem with the court honouring actual agreements. In fact, that's what I support. It's the court setting aside actual agreements that's the problem. It appears that you agree with me.

 

[Jokodo]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

He has a right to change his mind up until the point that a new agreement which doesn't require his consent is finalized and signed. If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and you're negotiating back and forth about what those benefits will be and you and your company can't come to an agreement, does that mean that you therefore agreed to the 10% cut without any corresponding benefits or does it mean that your old employment contract is still in effect and it hasn't been replaced by a new one? I think the latter.<snip>

If one of the benefits of the new contract is that you get Friday afternoons off and you take to leaving the office every Friday noon without requesting leave, than it's the former. The court appears to have found that his actions constitute evidence that he was in agreement with the drafted contract, which doesn't even appear to be something he himself disputes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

He has a right to change his mind up until the point that a new agreement which doesn't require his consent is finalized and signed. If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and you're negotiating back and forth about what those benefits will be and you and your company can't come to an agreement, does that mean that you therefore agreed to the 10% cut without any corresponding benefits or does it mean that your old employment contract is still in effect and it hasn't been replaced by a new one? I think the latter.<snip>

If one of the benefits of the new contract is that you get Friday afternoons off and you take to leaving the office every Friday noon without requesting leave, than it's the former. The court appears to have found that his actions constitute evidence that he was in agreement with the drafted contract, which doesn't even appear to be something he himself disputes.

And that's the entire point that everyone's been making - the court was in error. His agreement with the drafted contract came with conditions which were not met. Not meeting those conditions means that there was no agreement.

 

[Toni]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

The plaintiff has the right to change his mind if that's what was agreed to originally, regardless of what the Court or anyone else finds.

By "agreed to originally", you're referring to the informed consent form from the clinic that does not constitute a contract? And that would have at any rate been superceded by a more recent oral agreement, the existence and content of which the plaintiff does not appear to dispute?

Since the informed consent form is a written agreement that was signed by both parties, I would say it very much does constitute a contract.

The 'oral agreement' was that he would allow implantation if his medical records were destroyed. That condition was never met. Or are you referring to something else?

However, I have no problem with the court honoring actual agreements. In fact, that's what I support. It's the court setting aside actual agreements that's the problem. It appears that you agree with me.

News accounts refer to oral agreements--plural. I haven't been able to find any elaboration on what those agreements were.

 

[Jokodo]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

He has a right to change his mind up until the point that a new agreement which doesn't require his consent is finalized and signed. If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and you're negotiating back and forth about what those benefits will be and you and your company can't come to an agreement, does that mean that you therefore agreed to the 10% cut without any corresponding benefits or does it mean that your old employment contract is still in effect and it hasn't been replaced by a new one? I think the latter.<snip>

If one of the benefits of the new contract is that you get Friday afternoons off and you take to leaving the office every Friday noon without requesting leave, than it's the former. The court appears to have found that his actions constitute evidence that he was in agreement with the drafted contract, which doesn't even appear to be something he himself disputes.

And that's the entire point that everyone's been making - the court was in error. His agreement with the drafted contract came with conditions which were not met. Not meeting those conditions means that there was no agreement.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

 

[The Paul]

Second, kindly provide documentation that he "refused" to sign the agreement

I know people like to say "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I know it's pithy and fun to say, but it isn't true.

For instance. If someone is claiming another party agreed to the terms of a contract but they are unable to produce a signed contract, that's evidence that no agreement ever took place.

The thing of it is though, I don't believe I actually need to explain that to you.

Except that in a court of law, it is not "evidence that no agreement ever took place". We have evidence that agreement took place because we have his actions. There are also more than a year's worth of emails and texts that the court had access to. It probably didn't help the plaintiff's case, either, that his main legal argument is that he's allowed to change his mind in spite of his agreement. If there wasn't an actual agreement, why would he need to legally verify a right to change his mind?

You and others here keep going back to the "Informed Consent" document, and stopping there. Not even the Plaintiff is doing that.

It appears to me that, given the conflicting nature of the "Informed Consent" document, the unsigned but acted on "Co-Parenting" contract and the various emails and texts after, the judge proceeded to the "balancing approach". I know that you think it is black and white cut and dried, but not even the Plaintiff believes that.

This is personal opinion, but I would also note that in the cases I've been reading as a result of this case, the only times a court relied on an "Informed Consent" document as binding is when

(1) the document was far more detailed than the OP one appears to be. For instance, in one case the basic language said both parties had to agree, but then it also said in the event of a divorce/separation/disagreement, the parties had to write in the name of the person (& it could have been a third party or an appointed mediator or the court) who would make the final determination. They hand wrote the wife's name, and both initialed it. Contrast this situation wherein there was no provision in the "Informed Consent" document in the event of a divorce/separation or disagreement. I think a court could view a detailed, fill-in-the-blank document as a better indication of an actual agreement than a boiler-plate "Informed Consent" superseded by a visit to the attorney's office and a completed draft of a co-parenting agreement.

(2) Abiding by the "Informed Consent" document does not result in one party not being able to have their own biological child.

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

Yeah, no matter how much more detailed and legally "tight" the second contract is, Szafranski never agreed to be bound by its terms.

The idea that he did agree but never signed it is insane. How does that work, like, he read it over, had the pen in his hand, he was about to sign, but then the lawyers present snatched it from him and played "Keep Away." He chased them around with a pen, desperately trying to sign it for a while, but eventually became frustrated and gave up?

The claim that he implicitly agrees because he went forward and donated sperm doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that there was a different contract that he did sign in which he agreed to donate sperm.

All this stuff about how it's a judge's job to sort out the legal consequences of verbal agreements or to determine what to do in the event of a contract that doesn't address the current situation shouldn't matter when there's a signed contract already in place dealing with the situation.

As the the exact details of the legal writhings Szafranski and his lawyer have engaged in to try to cope with a judge who thinks Szafranski is legally obligated to honor agreements he explicitly refused to enter into... that is something of a special situation, and shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.

 

[Jokodo]

Second, kindly provide documentation that he "refused" to sign the agreement

I know people like to say "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I know it's pithy and fun to say, but it isn't true.

For instance. If someone is claiming another party agreed to the terms of a contract but they are unable to produce a signed contract, that's evidence that no agreement ever took place.

The thing of it is though, I don't believe I actually need to explain that to you.

Except that in a court of law, it is not "evidence that no agreement ever took place". We have evidence that agreement took place because we have his actions. There are also more than a year's worth of emails and texts that the court had access to. It probably didn't help the plaintiff's case, either, that his main legal argument is that he's allowed to change his mind in spite of his agreement. If there wasn't an actual agreement, why would he need to legally verify a right to change his mind?

You and others here keep going back to the "Informed Consent" document, and stopping there. Not even the Plaintiff is doing that.

It appears to me that, given the conflicting nature of the "Informed Consent" document, the unsigned but acted on "Co-Parenting" contract and the various emails and texts after, the judge proceeded to the "balancing approach". I know that you think it is black and white cut and dried, but not even the Plaintiff believes that.

This is personal opinion, but I would also note that in the cases I've been reading as a result of this case, the only times a court relied on an "Informed Consent" document as binding is when

(1) the document was far more detailed than the OP one appears to be. For instance, in one case the basic language said both parties had to agree, but then it also said in the event of a divorce/separation/disagreement, the parties had to write in the name of the person (& it could have been a third party or an appointed mediator or the court) who would make the final determination. They hand wrote the wife's name, and both initialed it. Contrast this situation wherein there was no provision in the "Informed Consent" document in the event of a divorce/separation or disagreement. I think a court could view a detailed, fill-in-the-blank document as a better indication of an actual agreement than a boiler-plate "Informed Consent" superseded by a visit to the attorney's office and a completed draft of a co-parenting agreement.

(2) Abiding by the "Informed Consent" document does not result in one party not being able to have their own biological child.

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

Yeah, no matter how much more detailed and legally "tight" the second contract is, Szafranski never agreed to be bound by its terms.

The idea that he did agree but never signed it is insane. How does that work, like, he read it over, had the pen in his hand, he was about to sign, but then the lawyers present snatched it from him and played "Keep Away." He chased them around with a pen, desperately trying to sign it for a while, but eventually became frustrated and gave up?

The claim that he implicitly agrees because he went forward and donated sperm doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that there was a different contract that he did sign in which he agreed to donate sperm.

All this stuff about how it's a judge's job to sort out the legal consequences of verbal agreements or to determine what to do in the event of a contract that doesn't address the current situation shouldn't matter when there's a signed contract already in place dealing with the situation.

It does matter because a more recent oral agreement can supercede an earlier signed contract, especially when the party acts in accordance with the new contract.

If my landlady tells me that she plans to raise my rent from 700 to 800 and the next month I make a payment of 800, I can't go back to paying 700 half a year later when things get tight, even if the only signed contract is the one that explicitly mentions a monthly rent of 700. If my employer offers me to reduce my hours by 10% for a 5% pay cut, I can't complain at the end of the month for I get a smaller check than what it says in my contract after I've taken off an afternoon each week for the month.

Whether that reasoning applies in this case is up to debate, but blanket declarations of absurdity don't help your case and are dishonest.

 

[The Paul]

Second, kindly provide documentation that he "refused" to sign the agreement

I know people like to say "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I know it's pithy and fun to say, but it isn't true.

For instance. If someone is claiming another party agreed to the terms of a contract but they are unable to produce a signed contract, that's evidence that no agreement ever took place.

The thing of it is though, I don't believe I actually need to explain that to you.

Except that in a court of law, it is not "evidence that no agreement ever took place". We have evidence that agreement took place because we have his actions. There are also more than a year's worth of emails and texts that the court had access to. It probably didn't help the plaintiff's case, either, that his main legal argument is that he's allowed to change his mind in spite of his agreement. If there wasn't an actual agreement, why would he need to legally verify a right to change his mind?

You and others here keep going back to the "Informed Consent" document, and stopping there. Not even the Plaintiff is doing that.

It appears to me that, given the conflicting nature of the "Informed Consent" document, the unsigned but acted on "Co-Parenting" contract and the various emails and texts after, the judge proceeded to the "balancing approach". I know that you think it is black and white cut and dried, but not even the Plaintiff believes that.

This is personal opinion, but I would also note that in the cases I've been reading as a result of this case, the only times a court relied on an "Informed Consent" document as binding is when

(1) the document was far more detailed than the OP one appears to be. For instance, in one case the basic language said both parties had to agree, but then it also said in the event of a divorce/separation/disagreement, the parties had to write in the name of the person (& it could have been a third party or an appointed mediator or the court) who would make the final determination. They hand wrote the wife's name, and both initialed it. Contrast this situation wherein there was no provision in the "Informed Consent" document in the event of a divorce/separation or disagreement. I think a court could view a detailed, fill-in-the-blank document as a better indication of an actual agreement than a boiler-plate "Informed Consent" superseded by a visit to the attorney's office and a completed draft of a co-parenting agreement.

(2) Abiding by the "Informed Consent" document does not result in one party not being able to have their own biological child.

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

Yeah, no matter how much more detailed and legally "tight" the second contract is, Szafranski never agreed to be bound by its terms.

The idea that he did agree but never signed it is insane. How does that work, like, he read it over, had the pen in his hand, he was about to sign, but then the lawyers present snatched it from him and played "Keep Away." He chased them around with a pen, desperately trying to sign it for a while, but eventually became frustrated and gave up?

The claim that he implicitly agrees because he went forward and donated sperm doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that there was a different contract that he did sign in which he agreed to donate sperm.

All this stuff about how it's a judge's job to sort out the legal consequences of verbal agreements or to determine what to do in the event of a contract that doesn't address the current situation shouldn't matter when there's a signed contract already in place dealing with the situation.

It does matter because a more recent oral agreement can supercede an earlier signed contract, especially when the party acts in accordance with the new contract.

If my landlady tells me that she plans to raise my rent from 700 to 800 and the next month I make a payment of 800, I can't go back to paying 700 half a year later when things get tight, even if the only signed contract is the one that explicitly mentions a monthly rent of 700. If my employer offers me to reduce my hours by 10% for a 5% pay cut, I can't complain at the end of the month for I get a smaller check than what it says in my contract after I've taken off an afternoon each week for the month.

Whether that reasoning applies in this case is up to debate, but blanket declarations of absurdity don't help your case and are dishonest.

A better analogy would be a scenario in which you've got a contact with your landlady in which you pay her $700 a month in rent and she leaves the heat and water turned on. She presents with a new contract in which you still pay $700 a month for rent, but the place doesn't get heat or plumbing anymore. You take her to court, but the judge says you agreed to the new contract by continuing to pay your rent after you'd seen it.

 

[Jokodo]

It does matter because a more recent oral agreement can supercede an earlier signed contract, especially when the party acts in accordance with the new contract.

If my landlady tells me that she plans to raise my rent from 700 to 800 and the next month I make a payment of 800, I can't go back to paying 700 half a year later when things get tight, even if the only signed contract is the one that explicitly mentions a monthly rent of 700. If my employer offers me to reduce my hours by 10% for a 5% pay cut, I can't complain at the end of the month for I get a smaller check than what it says in my contract after I've taken off an afternoon each week for the month.

Whether that reasoning applies in this case is up to debate, but blanket declarations of absurdity don't help your case and are dishonest.

A better analogy would be a scenario in which you've got a contact with your landlady in which you pay her $700 a month in rent and she leaves the heat and water turned on. She presents with a new contract in which you still pay $700 a month for rent, but the place doesn't get heat or plumbing anymore. You take her to court, but the judge says you agreed to the new contract by continuing to pay your rent after you'd seen it.

We're getting closer, but still not quite. It would seem that for it to be an analogy to the case at hand, I would have to continue paying 700 a month without complaining for some time, and only deciding to go to court after apparently having settled for the new deal.

 

[The Paul]

We're getting closer, but still not quite. It would seem that for it to be an analogy to the case at hand, I would have to continue paying 700 a month without complaining for some time, and only deciding to go to court after apparently having settled for the new deal. the water and heat get turned off.

The term "apparently" in "apparently settled the new deal" is a bit... off. Szafranski was presented with a contract and refused to sign it. Whatever promises were made or deals were discussed up to that point, when it came time to formalize the new arrangement and "seal the deal" he refused it. That says to any sane person he's not settling for the terms that contract presents. He's got no reason to think he's bound by any of the terms in it or even to suspect anyone thinks he agreed to them. His not taking any kind of corrective action should not give the appearance that he's settled on or is operating under the new deal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

 

[Toni]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

It isn't black and white. There is a signed agreement, an unsigned agreement that one claims he said he would sign and the other denies. Added are multiple verbal agreements and the fact that he performed the most essential part of all agreements by donating sperm.

Further, if he did not intend to actually allow the implantation of the embryos, he committed fraud and any signed contract would be void.

You may disagree as much as you like but so far, two courts have agreed with Dunston's position.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

It isn't black and white. There is a signed agreement, an unsigned agreement that one claims he said he would sign and the other denies. Added are multiple verbal agreements and the fact that he performed the most essential part of all agreements by donating sperm.

Further, if he did not intend to actually allow the implantation of the embryos, he committed fraud and any signed contract would be void.

You may disagree as much as you like but so far, two courts have agreed with Dunston's position.

And the whole crux of the matter rests upon the reason that the second agreement was unsigned. That is because he had conditions for his signing of it and those conditions were not met. Until those conditions are met, the unsigned agreement should not ever override the signed agreement.

 

[Toni]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

It isn't black and white. There is a signed agreement, an unsigned agreement that one claims he said he would sign and the other denies. Added are multiple verbal agreements and the fact that he performed the most essential part of all agreements by donating sperm.

Further, if he did not intend to actually allow the implantation of the embryos, he committed fraud and any signed contract would be void.

You may disagree as much as you like but so far, two courts have agreed with Dunston's position.

And the whole crux of the matter rests upon the reason that the second agreement was unsigned. That is because he had conditions for his signing of it and those conditions were not met. Until those conditions are met, the unsigned agreement should not ever override the signed agreement.

No. The crux of the matter is whether there were verbal agreements which supersede the written and signed agreement. That unsigned agreement never had the condition that the hospital destroy his records. That was a verbal condition he attached to consent in a verbal exchange. Apparently there was more than one verbal agreement.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No. The crux of the matter is whether there were verbal agreements which supersede the written and signed agreement. That unsigned agreement never had the condition that the hospital destroy his records. That was a verbal condition he attached to consent in a verbal exchange. Apparently there was more than one verbal agreement.

Ya ... kind of exactly. That means it's unclear exactly what it is that they agreed to verbally. When you have a situation like that, what you have is an ongoing negotiation. You don't just pick one of those from the middle and declare it the final agreement. What you do is hammer out any disagreements between the potential changes being made and then sign a new contract with the changes.

 

[RavenSky]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

He has a right to change his mind up until the point that a new agreement which doesn't require his consent is finalized and signed. If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and you're negotiating back and forth about what those benefits will be and you and your company can't come to an agreement, does that mean that you therefore agreed to the 10% cut without any corresponding benefits or does it mean that your old employment contract is still in effect and it hasn't been replaced by a new one? I think the latter.

I think your example is not analogous.

If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and the mediator draws up a new employment contract based on what both parties have said they wanted. In the meantime your company cuts your salary by 10% and increase your benefits in accordance with the new unsigned employment contract, and you continue working under those new terms for the next year without objection - do you think either you or your company could then claim there was no agreement beyond the original employment contract?

In any case, that was not my question. I asked if any of you think that the man should have been allowed to change his mind up to the point of implantation regardless of any contract - oral, written, signed or unsigned? That is his actual argument, and the position of a few states. Do you agree with his position?

 

[RavenSky]

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

The plaintiff has the right to change his mind if that's what was agreed to originally, regardless of what the Court or anyone else finds.

By "agreed to originally", you're referring to the informed consent form from the clinic that does not constitute a contract? And that would have at any rate been superceded by a more recent oral agreement, the existence and content of which the plaintiff does not appear to dispute?

Since the informed consent form is a written agreement that was signed by both parties, I would say it very much does constitute a contract.

The 'oral agreement' was that he would allow implantation if his medical records were destroyed.

You have skipped at least one very important step - he first orally agreed that he would be a co-parent to the child, and that Karla would have sole custody of the embryos. That oral agreement was put into written form (though never signed) prior to his fulfilling his part of that agreement.

His subsequent condition regarding the destruction of his medical records came after the fact, as did her concession not to hold him to his original co-parenting promise.

However, I have no problem with the court honouring actual agreements. In fact, that's what I support. It's the court setting aside actual agreements that's the problem. It appears that you agree with me.

And the problem here is that there was no actual agreement between the parties, particularly evidenced by how many times he has changed his mind and his terms.

- - - Updated - - -

And I would again emphasize that it is the Plaintiff insisting he had the right to change his mind regardless which agreement anyone found valid. Do you agree that he had the right to change his mind right up to the point of implantation?

He has a right to change his mind up until the point that a new agreement which doesn't require his consent is finalized and signed. If you're in a salary negotiation with your company and they want you to take a 10% pay cut in exchange for other benefits and you're negotiating back and forth about what those benefits will be and you and your company can't come to an agreement, does that mean that you therefore agreed to the 10% cut without any corresponding benefits or does it mean that your old employment contract is still in effect and it hasn't been replaced by a new one? I think the latter.<snip>

If one of the benefits of the new contract is that you get Friday afternoons off and you take to leaving the office every Friday noon without requesting leave, than it's the former. The court appears to have found that his actions constitute evidence that he was in agreement with the drafted contract, which doesn't even appear to be something he himself disputes.

And that's the entire point that everyone's been making - the court was in error. His agreement with the drafted contract came with conditions which were not met. Not meeting those conditions means that there was no agreement.

What conditions do you believe were in the co-parenting contract which were not met?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In any case, that was not my question. I asked if any of you think that the man should have been allowed to change his mind up to the point of implantation regardless of any contract - oral, written, signed or unsigned? That is his actual argument, and the position of a few states. Do you agree with his position?

Yes, he should be able to change his mind up until the point of implantation. That's what consent means. It's no different than a woman being able to withdraw her consent to sex at any point in the evening, regardless of whether or not the man had already paid for the lobster. It doesn't matter what agreements or promises she had made with the man, she can at any point and for any reason say "You can't stick your penis into me" and at that point he is no longer allowed to stick his penis into her.

Similarly, these two had an agreement requiring consent of both parties for implantation. That means that consent can be withdrawn at any point prior to implantation, regardless of what had been done or paid for up until that point. It doesn't matter what other factors are in play, he can at any point and for any reason say "You can't stick this embryo into you" and at that point she is no longer allowed to stick that embryo into her. That's what consent means.

- - - Updated - - -

What conditions do you believe were in the co-parenting contract which were not met?

I don't care. I'm discussing the contract about requiring consent for the implantation of the embryo.

 

[RavenSky]

Yeah, no matter how much more detailed and legally "tight" the second contract is, Szafranski never agreed to be bound by its terms.

Your opinion only, not supported by even the plaintiff's own legal arguments.

The idea that he did agree but never signed it is insane. How does that work, like, he read it over, had the pen in his hand, he was about to sign, but then the lawyers present snatched it from him and played "Keep Away." He chased them around with a pen, desperately trying to sign it for a while, but eventually became frustrated and gave up?

Appeal to ridicule is not a valid argument and not worth replying to.

The claim that he implicitly agrees because he went forward and donated sperm doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that there was a different contract that he did sign in which he agreed to donate sperm.

He donated sperm twice. Once at the time of the "Informed Consent" statement, and once after visiting the attorney to discuss and prepare the Co-Parenting Agreement, which included his agreement that Karla would have sole custody of the embryos. If he was not acting in accordance with the Co-Parenting agreement, why didn't he object then? Why did he proceed with the second sperm donation knowing full well that Karla, at least, believed they had an agreement on the Co-Parenting contract?

Either you are arguing that this guy is a complete idiot, or that he is a duplicitous jerk. But you can't argue that he participated in the creation of the co-parenting contract, then went ahead and performed his part of that contract, yet somehow in his mind that co-parenting agreement didn't even exist and that he was acting in good faith under the terms of the "Informed Consent" statement.

All this stuff about how it's a judge's job to sort out the legal consequences of verbal agreements or to determine what to do in the event of a contract that doesn't address the current situation shouldn't matter when there's a signed contract already in place dealing with the situation.

As the the exact details of the legal writhings Szafranski and his lawyer have engaged in to try to cope with a judge who thinks Szafranski is legally obligated to honor agreements he explicitly refused to enter into... that is something of a special situation, and shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.

Did you read the appeals court ruling that has been linked in this thread at least twice? Szafranski is the one who filed the original lawsuit. Those arguments are his original arguments, not in response to any particular judge. Moreover, his case was reviewed by the appeals court made up of three more judges - all men, btw - who specifically wrote in their decision:

Being a case of first impression, the circuit court did an admirable job of considering the alternative approaches taken by other states’ courts in addressing the issue of how to determine the disposition of cryopreserved pre-embryos created with one party’s sperm and another party’s ova.

No, this is not a case of some "feminist" judge torturing the law and case precedent to subjugate men from the bench. It is a complicated case wherein we now have 4 separate judges (three of them being men) who have so far all come to the same conclusion in favor of Karla Dunston.