• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Four States Do Not Allow Divorce During Pregnancy. No Exception for Domestic Violence.

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That doesn't oppress women it protects them. First of all, it doesn't keep the woman tied to the abuser. The divorce decree and all of its protections goes into effect prior to the finalization. In other words, the woman is freed from her abuser right away. What it does do is protect the woman and the unborn child by making the finalization happen after the birth. This allows the unborn child to be written into the final decree which simply has to wait until after birth.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

McBell

Unbound
That doesn't oppress women it protects them. First of all, it doesn't keep the woman tied to the abuser. The divorce decree and all of its protections goes into effect prior to the finalization. In other words, the woman is freed from her abuser right away. What it does do is protect the woman and the unborn child by making the finalization happen after the birth. This allows the unborn child to be written into the final decree which simply has to wait until after birth.
Source?
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What it does do is protect the woman and the unborn child by making the finalization happen after the birth. This allows the unborn child to be written into the final decree which simply has to wait until after birth.
How does this protect either the woman or the unborn child?

You could make the divorce decree immediate and any children born or unborn automatically part of the decree in cases of domestic violence and any protection the decree allegedly gives would have the same effect in my view.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
There's something I don't understand:
here in my country the great majority of divorces take place because the two spouses don't love each other any more and don't want to continue a farce...or because one spouse (usually the wife) demands sexual relations from the other spouse, and the unperforming spouse will have to be considered the guilty party in the divorce.

So ...a pregnancy means an intense sexual activity...which means that the two spouses love each other.
So why should they get divorced?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How does this protect either the woman or the unborn child?

You could make the divorce decree immediate and any children born or unborn automatically part of the decree in cases of domestic violence and any protection the decree allegedly gives would have the same effect in my view.
He seems to think that a child born out of wedlock does not deserve child support. If that is the case in those states that is merely another wrong that needs to be righted.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There's something I don't understand:
here in my country the great majority of divorces take place because the two spouses don't love each other any more and don't want to continue a farce...or because one spouse (usually the wife) demands sexual relations from the other spouse, and the unperforming spouse will have to be considered the guilty party in the divorce.

So ...a pregnancy means an intense sexual activity...which means that the two spouses love each other.
So why should they get divorced?
A pregnancy only means that they had sex together. At least once. That is all that it takes. Yes, some couples have lots of sex in an attempt to have a baby. Some couples fall into bed one night and that one time was all that it took. The laws need to be flexible.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
A pregnancy only means that they had sex together. At least once. That is all that it takes. Yes, some couples have lots of sex in an attempt to have a baby. Some couples fall into bed one night and that one time was all that it took. The laws need to be flexible.
A pregnancy only means that the wife had sex, together may well be the issue.
Whatever it is denying the divorce till the child is born makes no sense,
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
A pregnancy only means that they had sex together.
Which means, in our jurisprudence that the couple works.
Do you know how many divorces here take place because the wife demands sex relations and the husband won't have them with her (probably because he has a mistress)?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If so your jurisprudence needs some work.
Here it's all about sex. ;)
For example... the marriage contract implies "duties of material assistance" which means...sex is a duty, unless there is a medical cause that impedes sexual relations. Both the husband and the wife must perform. Must comply.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Which means, in our jurisprudence that the couple works.
Do you know how many divorces here take place because the wife demands sex relations and the husband won't have them with her (probably because he has a mistress)?
It sounds like that is the strategy couples who want a divorce uses in order for divorce to be granted.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That doesn't oppress women it protects them. First of all, it doesn't keep the woman tied to the abuser. The divorce decree and all of its protections goes into effect prior to the finalization. In other words, the woman is freed from her abuser right away. What it does do is protect the woman and the unborn child by making the finalization happen after the birth. This allows the unborn child to be written into the final decree which simply has to wait until after birth.
Yea. It's not like the woman has to actually stay with her spouse. It's just she can't divorce while pregnant.

The overly alarmist OP is a nothingburger in that regard.
 
Top