280
I heard once that after no-fault divorces started becoming wide-spread, murders of husbands by their wives decreased, since women now had a way to get out of a marriage.
I wonder if that trend will reverse.
I often used to scratch my head at hearing creaky old cons complaining about no-fault divorce. I thought those crusty old sort had mostly left this plane, but it seems some of the young cons are now making that a thing again.
They really, really, really just want to control the wimminfolk. Things like contraception, access to financial services, being able to drive, and yes, abortion ("on demand", as if anything else makes any sense - what the hell else would any health service be, FFS - I've always laughed at people adding "on demand" to the conversation as if it's a BAD thing. ) drives a certain type of person (men AND women, by the way) up the wall...
One can only hope.
Ah, so a good old virile rape and she's yours for another year.
Makes sense. /s
What the fuck??
What the fuck?
Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.
Some how I don’t think they thought that through. Idiots.
Well either they were stupid, or they knew exactly what they were doing.
I used to think that you should never attribute to malice what's easily explained by stupidity. And as I've grown up, I find a lot of malicious assholes hide behind stupidity.
Left to myself, I’m just gonna assume both. Malice and stupidity go hand in hand way too often
What were they doing? I'm trying to figure out why you think this was stupid or malicious in the 70s
There was no genetic testing for paternity back then. If you weren't married you could contest paternity.
‘Cuz nobody back then ever cheated…
Further the reality of parentage doesn’t change with a divorce. This is arbitrary bullshit.
People cheated for sure, but if you were married you were simply on the hook for the offspring even if it wasn't yours.
I'm not saying the law is good, I'm saying it made sense for the time it was passed in. Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.
Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”
But details. There’s no reason to use birth, as the critical time. Because if they knew she was pregnant to hold the divorce…. Then they could just make the guy cough up support. (Including while pregnant.)
Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”
To make someone the father they have to inform them of it. There's nothing stopping the father from flying the coop once divorced. While the proceedings are in progress, the judge has the right to keep the father to be present. And this was more of a concern when you could disappear and start a new life by moving across town.
I live in Canada. I never cease to be flabbergasted by laws in the US. It's like living next to a time warp.
A LOT of this country never left the 19th century, and they don't care to. They feel safe in the old ways, they're scared of change.
Took the words right outta my mouth.
State sanctioned kidnapping
I would not get married under any circumstance in Missouri then.
Best not to step foot in Missouri just to play it safe.
Call me crazy but the words free and can't are incompatible. Free to get a job and pay taxes is about all you're truly free to do. I ❤️ capitalism.🏴🏴🏴
If they have an initiative process they really need to change the state name to Misery. They make me feel better about my state and I'm in Texas.
I mean, physical abuse can threaten the life of the child. Wtf
If someone gets a divorce without knowing they were pregnant, then finds out, is the divorce reversed or does the women just get sent to jail. Maybe both.
Believe it or not, death.
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
280 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4565 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS