Pregnant women cant get divorced in Missouri

[Care4all]

They prevent the divorce from being finalized till custody is established. This forces the issue of custody... as it SHOULD.
Also, it is well established that people change their minds about custody when they see the child, and hold it in their arms.
Nothing wrong with this law. It protects the interest of both parties and protects the childs best interest.

The child is not a person, under the law, until they are born.

 

[toobfreak]

Pregnant women cant get divorced in Missouri​

Doofus, do you actually READ your own articles? It doesn't say that.

Its like the legal system is stacked against women. Like they are the property of their husbands.

That's REALLY gotta SUCK for you!

 

[Care4all]

Doofus, do you actually READ your own articles? It doesn't say that.


That's REALLY gotta SUCK for you!

They can not get their final divorce until the child is born, because under their law, the child has to be born to be a 'person', and custody can be decided.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Pregnant Women Can't Get Divorced in Missouri

The state's divorce law has come under more scrutiny since the overturning of Roe v. Wade

www.riverfronttimes.com

Its like the legal system is stacked against women. Like they are the property of their husbands. There is something dark and sinister going on in the most backward parts of America.

Of course courts are stacked against women, that's why we have Father's 4 Justice

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

She entered a contract to stay with her husband for better or worse.

Haha, religious nutter tries out a red herring, hoping nobody notices he is just a religious nutter who thinks women are property.

There is no legal binding to "for better or for worse". Unless you are a pregnant woman in Missouri, where women are codified into law as property, apparently.

 

[bodecea]

Enter troll parrot #2

I know that Republican males want to avoid responsibility for children.....forcing it on women alone.

 

[Meathead]

Yep. More white trash.

The way you carry on, you'd think Republicans were trying to take a way your grazing rights.

Sheesh!

 

[Meathead]

I know that Republican males want to avoid responsibility for children.....forcing it on women alone.

You mean all those black Republican males?

 

[Mac-7]

Are libs claiming that its only the woman who cant het a divorce?

men are affected by the same law

And its only a delay not an outright ban

 

[Dekster]

Sounds like the trouble is "men" trying to avoid responsibility for the children they created.

Not their body. Not their decision.

 

[Dekster]

Child support payments should start at con-ception now.

Screw that. As much as women haul in on bennies, we are all supporting their kids.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The child is not a person, under the law, until they are born.

As usual, as a liberal, you are arguing semantics and innuendos and we are arguing results and reality

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Screw that. As much as women haul in on bennies, we are all supporting their kids.

How much is that? Tell us this tale of women living high on the hog.

 

[initforme]

Once she has the kid she can give it up for adoption easily and get a divorce. Win win win.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Once she has the kid she can give it up for adoption easily and get a divorce. Win win win.

Can she? My, that is so nice of you to allow her to do so.

How about, fuck you?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Just another example of the virtue signalers twisting reality, making it something it isn't - and then pose outrage for it being that way.
It is clear what this law does.
It protects the interest of both and the child.
It forces them to work out custody, which forces what the child support will be also.
There is no unequal loser here.
But leave it to the faux outragers and make a ridiculous claim that it is about forcing women to do something.
It is forcing both of them equally numbnuts

 

[Seymour Flops]

I doubt that she studied the divorce laws when she got married.

I doubt that also.

What liberals don't get about women - sorry, people with vulvas - is that they get married with the expectation of happily ever after, not in hopes of the double empowerment of a divorce and an abortion.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Haha, religious nutter tries out a red herring, hoping nobody notices he is just a religious nutter who thinks women are property.

There is no legal binding to "for better or for worse". Unless you are a pregnant woman in Missouri, where women are codified into law as property, apparently.

There you go, then.

If you identify as a woman, stay out of Missouri.

What about a pregnant man in Missouri? Are they property also?

 

[Care4all]

As usual, as a liberal, you are arguing semantics and innuendos and we are arguing results and reality

The laws contradict eachother.

Even in the founding fathers time period, abortion before Quickening was not punishable by law, because the baby to be was not considered a person with rights, a life....until after quickening, after the baby stirs in the womb, around 20 weeks gestation...

==================

One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,

“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

....

From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

 

[Blues Man]

Pregnant Women Can't Get Divorced in Missouri

The state's divorce law has come under more scrutiny since the overturning of Roe v. Wade

www.riverfronttimes.com

Its like the legal system is stacked against women. Like they are the property of their husbands. There is something dark and sinister going on in the most backward parts of America.

You really should read the entire article

Dan Mizell, an attorney in Lebanon, Missouri, who has been practicing law since 1997, says that certain aspects of the divorce can proceed, but everything having to do with custody of the unborn child is frozen in place until birth or a pregnancy-ending event like a miscarriage. The court can issue temporary orders related to things like dividing up property, Mizell says. "But they can't do a final decree of divorce until she delivers the baby."