JJ Redick and his Ex GF had an abortion contract

[BubbaTee]

Just out of curiosity, would it have been legal to create a contract that didn't obligate him to give child support ever in the even that she decided to keep it?

It's usually not legal to create that type of contract.

Good post. I wish I'd seen it before I responded. One point: I'm pretty sure rather than "usually not" the word is "never." Are you aware of a contract of that nature being deemed enforceable?

Say the situations were reversed, like it was some guy working minimum wage who got Oprah pregnant, and Oprah had custody. Since Oprah is so rich, there would be no negative effect on the child with the loss of the father's tiny child support payment. That's an extreme example, but you get the point.

Another instance would be where some other form of compensation is given besides straight monetary support, such as in this case. Here, the non-custodial mother made much less than the custodial father, so the mother instead gave up her share of equity in the family home until the child reached adulthood.
http://purplelawfirm.com/blog_news/2010 ... be-waived/

In an ideal world, there would be more of the 2nd type of deal. For instance, a non-custodial parent could give new school clothes, or diapers, in place of a check. That way, it would ensure the child support money was spent on the child, and not skimmed by the custodial parent for their own personal use. Unfortunately, family courts often lack the will to impose such agreements and/or the resources to monitor and enforce them.

[homecourtloss]

Damn, this is a fiery thread. And1's are being hard out left and right.

Not being able to get your post "And1ed" here would be like an NBA player not being able to tap this Vanessa Lopez trick.

[DuckIII]

Damn, this is a fiery thread. And1's are being hard out left and right.

Not being able to get your post "And1ed" here would be like an NBA player not being able to tap this Vanessa Lopez trick.

None of my posts have an And1.

[bigbadstevenson]

the fact that he distrusts someone so deeply that he slept with some regularity is what makes him dumb. the fact he paid a lawyer to write up this clearly unenforceable contract reinforces that theory. the fact that he has such a callous stance towards aborting his own child makes him a scumbag.

A "callous stance" isn't inappropriate. What kind of person would bring a child into this world willingly and with a clear conscience? None that have thoughtfully considered the nature of conscious experience.

He "decided" to take that risk when he came inside of her. There is a responsible way to avoid pregnancy with someone with whom you don't want to have a child. Avoid sleeping with them OR use multiple methods of birth control. It's not like he didn't have access to sex education. This is an over-privileged brat trying to avoid responsibility for a human life he created because he wanted to get his bird wet. It's been proven that a fetus has the ability to feel pain from at the LATEST four months into pregnancy. This isn't a victimless crime.

1. Can I get a citation on that second-last sentence? It's not that I doubt it: I just would like to support my claim if it ever comes up and I'm defending the point.

2. How long after impregnating her did the arrangement take place? (Do we know?) If this was arranged a week or two after conception, the claim about feeling pain may be irrelevant to this particular case. If she decided to wait a few months and Redick thought that it had already happened, I don't think he'd be at fault for any suffering; though maybe I could be convinced otherwise.

3. How much would it hurt to be aborted at that time? About as much as a needle-prick? I guess I'm getting into pretty murky territory, but I'm trying to raise the utilitarian point that it's conceivable that the child would have suffered more as a result of being born.

Besides that: I'm seldom quick to jump to the defence of professional athletes, but I'm not ready to rule out that he was deceived into thinking that contraceptives were used. However, there's always another preventative measure to take up until the point of saying "Thanks but no thanks." You're certainly right about that.

[DuckIII]

What kind of person would bring a child into this world willingly and with a clear conscience? None that have thoughtfully considered the nature of conscious experience.

I'm not sure I understand these sentences. I have 3 children. On purpose. Your parents obviously had at least 1.

[BubbaTee]

A "callous stance" isn't inappropriate. What kind of person would bring a child into this world willingly and with a clear conscience? None that have thoughtfully considered the nature of conscious experience.

He "decided" to take that risk when he came inside of her. There is a responsible way to avoid pregnancy with someone with whom you don't want to have a child. Avoid sleeping with them OR use multiple methods of birth control. It's not like he didn't have access to sex education. This is an over-privileged brat trying to avoid responsibility for a human life he created because he wanted to get his bird wet. It's been proven that a fetus has the ability to feel pain from at the LATEST four months into pregnancy. This isn't a victimless crime.

1. Can I get a citation on that second-last sentence? It's not that I doubt it: I just would like to support my claim if it ever comes up and I'm defending the point.

Likely it refers to some point of development at which the fetus reacts to external stimulii, which isn't saying much - even plants do that. This happens between 18 and 26 weeks into the pregnancy.

Whether a fetus experiencing that stimulii constitutes "pain" gets you into the realm of philosophy.

A proper understanding of pain must account for the conceptual content that constitutes the pain experience. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.” By this definition pain is not merely the response to noxious stimuli or disease but is a conscious experience. The definition further states that “pain is always subjective. Each individual learns the application of the word through experiences related to injury in early life.” The limited neural system of fetuses cannot support such cognitive, affective, and evaluative experiences; and the limited opportunity for this content to have been introduced also means that it is not possible for a fetus to experience pain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

[meatwad4343]

this should probably be locked, it has nothing to do with nba discussion anymore and people are just bashing each other and talking politics. this forum isn't the place for that.

[DivineFury]

I'm confused why people are saying he forced her to sign anything. I don't see anything in article about him holding her hostage until she signed it.

Also it does not say he will date her for a year, it says he will try to but if he chooses not to he pays her 25k. My guess is he probably paid the 25k. The situation is obviously sketchy but seems most people are overreacting to something that happens all the time - unexpected pregnancy. Far as I can tell they made a decision together, documented with contract for legal purposes.

Some people seem to approach this automatically as she wanted to have the child and he forced her to get an abortion. She could of had the child and got money, instead she choose just money.

As far as abortion, people need to realize that just because you think something is wrong, doesn't make it barbaric or disgusting. Right and wrong are just words people made up. In some countries it's wrong for women to accuse a man of raping her and barbaric to have women walking around dressed like sluts. What makes your wrong/barbaric different from their's other than your own perception?

[SacTownKings4Life]

JJ has upheld an image of being a devoutly religious player for years.

Now he's signing contracts with women agreeing to kill the fetuses they produce together.

Sounds about right.

So imagine if you found out that the only reason you were brought to term and are alive today was NOT to be a fully functioning human being, but to be a free paycheck for your mom for 18 years before being thrown away as soon as your mother is legally able to do so? How would that make you feel? What kind of existence is that? You know these women aren't having these children because they actually want a FAMILY or even because they "love" their children.

A lot of people pretend like they're all about the children, but the fact of the matter is, you don't see the world through their eyes. You don't know all of the experiences they either have been through or will have to go through which they didn't ask for. Some people say, "they didn't ask to be here, but since they're here..." No. Since they didn't ask to be here, maybe you as a "parent" shouldn't have been so selfish as to bring them here ANYWAY and expect them to just DEAL with whatever crappy quality of life you happen to give them, by virtue of your NOT being prepared for parenthood. That's not a blessing, that's a curse. You're bringing a life into the world with ZERO regard for the well-being OF that life. You just wanna get paid. **** the kid.

I have 8 month old twin nephews who's only reason for being alive was to be used as pawns by my sister to get what she wanted. It disgusts me. And the worst part about It is, she doesn't definitively know who the father is and hasn't been taking her own parental duties seriously. So our mother is raising them. I can only imagine how the lives of these CLEARLY unwanted children will unfold. But hey, at least they're "alive", right? Smh...

[DuckIII]

Some people seem to approach this automatically as she wanted to have the child and he forced her to get an abortion. She could of had the child and got money, instead she choose just money.

Not only that, but even under the contract she could have had the child and gotten all kinds of money. Just $25K less than the most money should could have gotten but for the contract.

The contract is more or less useless as it provides an extremely weak incentive to a woman who actually wants to have a baby. But useless though it may be, its perfectly enforceable. There are a lot of posts earlier in the thread saying that the contract isn't enforceable. But they're wrong.

[DivineFury]

Some people seem to approach this automatically as she wanted to have the child and he forced her to get an abortion. She could of had the child and got money, instead she choose just money.

Not only that, but even under the contract she could have had the child and gotten all kinds of money. Just $25K less than the most money should could have gotten but for the contract.

The contract is more or less useless as it provides an extremely weak incentive to a woman who actually wants to have a baby. But useless though it may be, its perfectly enforceable. There are a lot of posts earlier in the thread saying that the contract isn't enforceable. But they're wrong.

If a sperm donor can sign away any rights/obligations to a kid, I don't see why someone else can't, so I agree.

[DuckIII]

Some people seem to approach this automatically as she wanted to have the child and he forced her to get an abortion. She could of had the child and got money, instead she choose just money.

Not only that, but even under the contract she could have had the child and gotten all kinds of money. Just $25K less than the most money should could have gotten but for the contract.

The contract is more or less useless as it provides an extremely weak incentive to a woman who actually wants to have a baby. But useless though it may be, its perfectly enforceable. There are a lot of posts earlier in the thread saying that the contract isn't enforceable. But they're wrong.

If a sperm donor can sign away any rights/obligations to a kid, I don't see why someone else can't, so I agree.

That isn't why its enforceable. Its enforceable because: (a) it does not require her to get an abortion; and (b) it does not prohibit her from obtaining a lawful child support order against him. A lot of people simply misread the contract (or possibly didn't read it at all).

[rockmanslim]

Is this an April Fool's joke?

[WenningtonGuy]

One of the few social issues I can't see the other point of view.

We are talking about killing an innocent life.

[fishnc]

One of the few social issues I can't see the other point of view.

We are talking about killing a life.

How do you feel about the death penalty?

[WenningtonGuy]

One of the few social issues I can't see the other point of view.

We are talking about killing a life.

How do you feel about the death penalty?

I don't agree with it, but it is a completely irrelevant discussion.

We are talking about an innocent life as compared to someone who has done harm to the world. Still, completely irrelevant.

[fishnc]

One of the few social issues I can't see the other point of view.

We are talking about killing a life.

How do you feel about the death penalty?

I don't agree with it, but it is a completely irrelevant discussion.

We are talking about an innocent life as compared to someone who has done harm to the world. Still, completely irrelevant.

Well, you never said about anything about innocence in your original post, which is why I asked.

[WenningtonGuy]

How do you feel about the death penalty?

I don't agree with it, but it is a completely irrelevant discussion.

We are talking about an innocent life as compared to someone who has done harm to the world. Still, completely irrelevant.

Well, you never said about anything about innocence in your original post, which is why I asked.

My apologies. The only time there is black and white to me when we are talking about abortion is in the case of rape.

[Just Plain Mark]

Has the legality of the abortion clause been addressed? I asked on the Magic forum but haven't gotten a response yet. For one thing, the woman doesn't seem to get any consideration for going thru with an abortion so I don't understand how Redick could enforce the abortion clause. Second, the clause may be uneforceable as a matter of law for violating the 13th Amendment.

My brief research indicates that there isn't much case law on the issue and that it seems unenforceable. But I hate contract law so can someone who actually knows something weight in?

[tiderulz]

[

My apologies. The only time there is black and white to me when we are talking about abortion is in the case of rape.

just to play devils advocate. How is the child produced by rape not innocent? and yet you are okay with that