Okay, but have you tried praying to Jesus for salvation? Like, really tried? I don't think you tried hard enough, sweetie. I'm going to fail you and make you repeat the class.

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

OBVIOUSLY he's just playing hard to get because you don't spend enough time cooking and bathing him. It's actually your fault and if you accept sky Daddy hard enough he'll come running back.

Horrific

To stop fathers abandoning the family when the wife gets pregnant and using a loophole to get out of child support.

Last time this came up on Lemmy there was a comment saying that's where the law came from originally.

It doesn't stop you separating during pregnancy, just to complete the divorce you have to wait till after the birth.

Its a two way street. Men cant get divorced either.

It's there on the books due to child custody issues. A wife who's married and gives birth has the husband put in as the father. If unmarried, a woman can put in "unknown" as the father and take away all of his rights to see his kid or have anything to do with his child until a nice lengthy and costly amount of court, which gets even more difficult if the mom leaves the state.

So short version is that the law prevents one parent from trying to prevent the other parent from having any form of child custody.

I guess you can make an argument that a pregnant woman isn't of sound mind, but I think it's more about ensuring parenthood is established outside the divorce process.

Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas. Lawmakers claim it's to prevent issues with things like child support, visitation, etc, before paternity can be established. This article does a pretty good job summarizing the situations:

https://www.usatoday.com/...

Law is from 1973 and was amended in 2016.

Oh no it's not, it hasn't been that for a while. Some states may look like it, but some are straight up third world.

First world country only if you're in a certain percentage of income.

By original definition, USA is a first world country because they supported the USA and other Western countries in the cold war: https://www.investopedia.com/...

It's probably more about preventing the state from becoming liable to help the child than anything about bastards.

It's a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.

Dude was also allegedly regularly referring to death and the afterlife using marriage metaphors of bridegrooms and bridal suites.

But yeah, the idea divorce is impossible had to do with actual marriage and not the whole 'dying' part.

(Though I suppose the sect that believed a dead body came back as opposed to the sects that denied physical resurrection would have preferred interpreting it as referring to actual marriage and not death...)

Possibly related note: Jesus's rules on divorce do not permit a woman to leave an abusive marriage.

Citation needed por favor.

A few years ago, right before the pandemic in fact, I came very close to moving to Missouri.

At the time, turning the job down because of the incredibly low final offer was one of the hardest things I'd ever done.

Ended up finding a much better job and moving back to my home town in a decidedly blue state, really dodged a bullet on that one.

As an AFAB Missourian I'm fucking terrified.

I swear, marriage would be easier dealt with if both parties opted to incorporate a business, and put their relevant assets in the name of the corporation. Then at least separation would be pretty clean cut and dry. The Irony is - this is basically what marriage is.

And yet in most states, a pregnant woman can get a divorce finalized somehow.

must be part of the final divorce decree.

Why?

This person is living on mars.

Or he’s just fucking stupid.

Maybe you could keep in mind that this state also had trigger laws banning abortion as soon as roe was overturned. The stakes are much fucking higher for people that can get pregnant.

Consider if you will that pregnancy is a state of extreme vulnerability. The chances of being killed by a parter are astronomically higher for pregnant people... With the case of a lot of insurance, banking policies and economic infrastructure is designed to enable spouses to be treated as a single person any property you acquire is by default mutually owned meaning there's all manner of control which can be exerted by a spouse. You cannot file taxes separately and kinship treats your spouse as both your automatic inheritor and a legal authority with power of attorney in the event of you are incapacitated so you have someone that you cannot fully escape from because of legal ties. If you fear for your life from someone any contact is too much.

Considering too that it relatively common for men who were not previously abusive to suddenly change their personality, dropping their masks abruptly once someone is essentially trapped into having their baby then not giving someone the ability to extracate themselves from this situation is creating incentive to put on these deceptions. In the matter of childbearing the risk is borne only by one partner. It would stand to reason that if a non bearing partner causes an undue increase in the risks during the most vulnerable stages of pregnancy that they default on both their responsibilities and privileges as a parent.

Critically in a very short term divorce proceeding you do have to prove to a court cruelty or adultery which means obtaining reasonable proof these things exist. If your partner is proven cruel or a cheater then really are they worth defending their custody so vehemently? Most no fault divorce state requirements require a mutual separation period well beyond the gestation period of pregnancy (one year is the most common) . Even if you timed a separation so that you got pregnant right at the beginning of starting the clock that baby would be three months old before you would be eligible to divorce.