Pregnant women cant get divorced in Missouri

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

In a bifurcated divorce some matters can be settled later.
 
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.

Double empowerment??? 😅
 
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,



....

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,
More semantics/
You guys love to complicate the shit out of things.
It is a simple law that has a benefit to all involved.
Simply delays the divorce until both the child is born and custody is legally established.
That is the best outcome for the child because it forces lazy ass people to be responsible for the child.
Which has an added benefit of setting support.
 
More semantics/
You guys love to complicate the shit out of things.
It is a simple law that has a benefit to all involved.
Simply delays the divorce until both the child is born and custody is legally established.
That is the best outcome for the child because it forces lazy ass people to be responsible for the child.
Which has an added benefit of setting support.

You can't force anyone to be a good, responsible, loving parent. You think you can legislate that?
 
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,



....

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,
Banning abortion after twenty weeks, and making such late-term abortions a misdemeanor would be a compromise which would please no one. Which is a sign of a good compromise.

I've never thought that women who have abortions should be punished harshly. They are victims of the abortion industry. The doctors, for the most part, will be deterred by the possibility of a misdemeanor charge. If not, the laws can be adjusted and the penalties increased.
 

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.
Well when was that law actually made? It's probably been on the books since the 1800s and before.

Nothing's "going on" - it's just an archaic state law which no one has bothered to challenge in the past 100 years or so for whatever reason. Maybe now that it's getting news attention it will be repealed.
 
Banning abortion after twenty weeks, and making such late-term abortions a misdemeanor would be a compromise which would please no one. Which is a sign of a good compromise.

I've never thought that women who have abortions should be punished harshly. They are victims of the abortion industry. The doctors, for the most part, will be deterred by the possibility of a misdemeanor charge. If not, the laws can be adjusted and the penalties increased.
In general, the woman has never been severely punished out of compassion for what she is going through.... fear, uncertainty, rejection, health and financial worries etc that she's facing. .

She was punished more harshly if she had an abortion due to committing adultery than because her and the hubby already had 8 kids to feed.....and again, punishment only took place if she aborted after quickening.
 
Drake also points out what seems to be a double standard in regards to how the state treats an unborn child in a divorce proceeding compared to in abortion law.

She says that the whole basis for Missouri putting the pause on a divorce proceeding until a child is born is because Missouri divorce law "does not see fetuses as humans."
There’s no ‘seems’ about it – it is a double-standard; yet another example of the dishonest right’s hypocrisy.
 
Not their body. Not their decision.
It was the guy's decision, before and when he donated his sperm, it was the girl's decision after she accepted the donation, and both of their previous decisions combined, that created his and her child, which he has to give some financial support for the next 18 yrs, and she has to give her time in life to, for the next 18 years. Seems fair imo.
 
You really don't know the difference, do you?

I don't call groups of people names like that--except for Leftists and liberals, which is an unfortunate choice. Progressives are the snots who love to look down on people. "White trash" is that. You all pretend to care about "the little guy" but secretly sniff down your noses at them.

Well, not secretly anymore.
 
I don't call groups of people names like that--except for Leftists and liberals, which is an unfortunate choice. Progressives are the snots who love to look down on people. "White trash" is that. You all pretend to care about "the little guy" but secretly sniff down your noses at them.

Well, not secretly anymore.

They are trash trying to hold women hostage. A bifurcated divorce leaves some designated matters to be settled by the court later.
 
It was the guy's decision, before and when he donated his sperm, it was the girl's decision after she accepted the donation, and both of their previous decisions combined, that created his and her child, which he has to give some financial support for the next 18 yrs, and she has to give her time in life to, for the next 18 years. Seems fair imo.
Always the man's fault
 
Always the man's fault
It always was the guys fault to a degree, under societal pressure, married the girl they impregnated for the most part in the 1950s. Out of all marriages that had babies their first year of marriage in the 1950s, 70% of those married couples delivered their babies 7 months or earlier in to their marriage.... Sex outside of marriage occurred, but a guy was pressured or just felt obligated, to give their child a name, and girlfriend some respect.

But I'm not saying it is solely the guy's fault.... That's your own issue.
 
The abortion issue is about where do you draw the line. Only a few hardcore abortion supporters want to draw it significantly later than the birth. The mainstream pro-choicer says "at birth."

Everyone has their own idea of when the line should be drawn, so I cannot claim mine is the best or only correct solution. That said, mine is the point at which the baby can feel pain. Brain waves start at twelve weeks, but that does not mean that the baby can experience pain in the same way a born baby can. Twenty weeks is a good time that we can say any reasonable person would agree that the baby feels pain.

I tried searching on "when can a baby feel pain," and other similar phrases. I didn't mention abortion or fetus, just "Baby" "when" and "pain." Not one of the answers I found said, "right after birth," or anything like that.
 
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.
And yet...women initiate two divorces in three.
 

Forum List

Back
Top