Here's the way marriage SHOULD be handled

[Seth]

This is the kind of civil contract that all couples should enter into rather than "marriage," and the government's sole role would be to record the contract in the public records and adjudicate claims of breach of contract.

Sports
Shock Documents Claim to Show NBA Player’s Creepy ‘Abortion Contract’ With His Girlfriend
Jul. 23, 2013 4:45pm Becket Adams

Alleged legal documents uncovered by the website MediaTakeOut reveal what appears to be an “abortion contract” between NBA player J.J. Redick and his then-pregnant girlfriend Vanessa Lopez.
J.J. Redick and Vanessa Lopez Had an Abortion Contract

J.J. Redick. (Getty Images)

The documents, which were reportedly drafted in 2007, show Redick and model Vanessa Lopez had a legal agreement over how her abortion should be handled and how their relationship should play out afterwards.

Deadspin points to the following passage as the most relevant part of the full legal document:

J.J. Redick and Vanessa Lopez Had an Abortion Contract

As the above passage shows, Lopez agreed to have an abortion provided Redick, who today refers to himself as a “Christian,” “husband,” and “foodie” on his Twitter account, would agree to stay in a “relationship” with her for at least one year.

But wait! That’s not all:

J.J. Redick and Vanessa Lopez Had an Abortion Contract

“The contract goes on to make further stipulations, including a confidentiality agreement and a warning that any contact between the two after the ‘relationship’ has reached its conclusion would be considered stalking,” writes Deadspin’s Tom Ley.

There was also a $25,000 “break-up fee” included in the contract in the event Redick left Lopez after her abortion, Twitchy notes.

At the time of the document’s drafting, Reddick was a 22-year-old NBA rookie. Lopez has since gone on to date — and have problems — with other NBA stars.

“We can now add this document into the annals of sad and scummy things that happen when basketball players hook up with models,” Ley quips.

[Tyrannical]

You know what would be more effective than an abortion contract? A shall not pursue child support clause You could make a fortune following celebrities around and making their groupies sign them.

[Seth]

You know what would be more effective than an abortion contract? A shall not pursue child support clause You could make a fortune following celebrities around and making their groupies sign them.

Problem is that the courts have ruled such contracts to be invalid as a matter of public policy because once the child is endowed with rights the child support paid is not for the benefit of the ex-spouse or groupie, it's for the CHILD.

Which is, I suspect, why the abortion clause is in there...and brilliantly so. It avoids the problem of child support by making certain there is no child BEFORE the child is endowed with rights.

Fucking brilliant.

[pErvinalia]

A mate of mine used to play (and is now a coach) in the AFL (Australian Rules Football). I caught up with him the other day and we were talking about "partying" in the football codes these days. He said that most of the players and agents were aware of the situation in the US where they have these sorts of contracts, and reckons it's not far away that we'll adopt them in Australia. He said these days, the prime concern for a footballer after having a one night stand is to collect the condom before he goes. NEVER leave it with the woman (or man)

[Seth]

A mate of mine used to play (and is now a coach) in the AFL (Australian Rules Football). I caught up with him the other day and we were talking about "partying" in the football codes these days. He said that most of the players and agents were aware of the situation in the US where they have these sorts of contracts, and reckons it's not far away that we'll adopt them in Australia. He said these days, the prime concern for a footballer after having a one night stand is to collect the condom before he goes. NEVER leave it with the woman (or man)

And make sure you bring your own condom, and never let it leave your possession, not for a second, so she can't stick a pin through it.

Of course there's the fact that condoms are only 85% effective in the first place.

I'd also buy a packet of the "morning after pill" and make it a precondition to sex that she take it before the party starts.

[Warren Dew]

Deadspin points to the following passage as the most relevant part of the full legal document:

J.J. Redick and Vanessa Lopez Had an Abortion Contract

As the above passage shows

Seems like there's something missing from the quoted passage. How about a link to the source?

[Cormac]

Appalling.

[Kristie]

Appalling.

[Warren Dew]

Appalling.

Why?

[Cormac]

Appalling.

Why?

For lots of reasons, not least of which is that it immediatley characterises the relationship as a completely mercenary interaction.

I wonder how effective it would be in a court of law?

[Seth]

Appalling.

Why?

For lots of reasons, not least of which is that it immediatley characterises the relationship as a completely mercenary interaction.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Celebrity wants to have arm-candy and sex, hot girl wants to be arm-candy, get lots of material goodies and luxury and either wants sex or is willing to trade sex for what she wants.

Oldest story in history.

I wonder how effective it would be in a court of law?

I'd be interested to see. The problem is that the law being what it is, by the time that the case comes to trial the child would already be born, and once born it is the child whose rights are protected by making "non-paternity" contracts unlawful as against public policy. This is why recently some courts have overturned such contracts as they apply to anonymous sperm donors and have imposed liability for child support on men who jacked off into a cup.

Therefore, while the girl might owe the celebrity a penalty, he'd still be obligated to support the child. And if she didn't have the money to pay the penalty the court would likely hold the contract invalid because of its negative impact on the ability of the mother to raise the child properly.

From the public policy perspective, for such contracts to be enforceable the law would have to sanction a "forcible abortion" provision that grants permission of the father to take physical custody of the womb (and therefore the body) of the woman and compel her to have an abortion. That smacks of involuntary servitude, notwithstanding a voluntary contractual agreement to submit. I believe the courts have held that BDSM "sex slave" contracts are invalid and cannot be enforced. I know courts have rejected contracts that give the master the right to kill the slave, no matter how voluntary the contract.

The only sure way to deal with celebrity sex is to a) require the woman to have her tubes tied as a contract provision prior to sex; or b) get a vasectomy before sex; or c) not have sex.

[Warren Dew]

I wonder how effective it would be in a court of law?

I'd be interested to see. The problem is that the law being what it is, by the time that the case comes to trial the child would already be born, and once born it is the child whose rights are protected by making "non-paternity" contracts unlawful as against public policy. This is why recently some courts have overturned such contracts as they apply to anonymous sperm donors and have imposed liability for child support on men who jacked off into a cup.

Did I miss something? It appears to me that the contract doesn't require the girlfriend to have an abortion; it just pays her $25k if she chooses to have an abortion, to help balance out all the child support she would be missing out on.

[Seth]

I wonder how effective it would be in a court of law?

I'd be interested to see. The problem is that the law being what it is, by the time that the case comes to trial the child would already be born, and once born it is the child whose rights are protected by making "non-paternity" contracts unlawful as against public policy. This is why recently some courts have overturned such contracts as they apply to anonymous sperm donors and have imposed liability for child support on men who jacked off into a cup.

Did I miss something? It appears to me that the contract doesn't require the girlfriend to have an abortion; it just pays her $25k if she chooses to have an abortion, to help balance out all the child support she would be missing out on.

Good point. I had missed that, or forgotten it. I'd say that's entirely enforceable. Of course the father will still be liable for child support no matter what he pays her. So really it's just a cash incentive to abort the child, nothing more. Nothing illegal about that I think.

[MrJonno]

Well I'm all for paying people to have abortions through $25k is far too much, if you offered $1000 I bet it would drastically reduce the number of uncared for kids, I also would support tax payer going towards it, $1000 to have an abortion + maybe $100-$2000 for the pill/operation versus $1million + for a future criminal is a no brainer.

The only problem with abortion in the 1st world is there simply arent enough of them

[Twoflower]

As long as it doesn't force the woman to have an abortion I think it's a great idea.