Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend from a state that doesn’t allow pregnant women to be divorced who found out her DH was cheating on her and no longer wanted to be married to her or be a father early during her second trimester. He moved out of their home and moved in with his girlfriend. She couldn’t file for divorce until after the baby was born. It was pretty horrific for her, being stuck in that situation, unable to have any resolution, while her husband was shacked up with the other woman.

I’m not a fan of that law, because I’ve seen how women can be trapped by it. She has a career, money, and family nearby to help her out, but she was still trapped. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is for women who lack resources to be stuck in marriages they don’t want. It can be so much more different to leave when the baby is present. I can see how laws like this could protect women and children back when women were openly treated as inferior to men and earning a decent living as a single mom would’ve been practically impossible. I don’t see how this does anything to protect women now.

Just pointing out that it is rare for a divorce to be concluded in under five months (which presumably what she has left on the term). Divorce is not instant.

It protects women by definitively resolving paternity to the father and creating a child support obligation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

Every woman and girl deserves the right to control her own body.

You need to think about the life of your unborn child; it's not just your own body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

Every woman and girl deserves the right to control her own body.

You need to think about the life of your unborn child; it's not just your own body.

Women do think about the life that is coming into the world. Remaining in a toxic marriage isn’t good for kids ever. Forcing women into situations is not upholding the whole “freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

NP. What communities? Do people want to associate with those communities?! I have been happily married to the father of my two teens for 20 years. I wouldn’t want to be around people who would look down upon a child whose parents weren’t married. They seem horribly judgmental and ignorant about life!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

I mean look, 40% of babies in the US are born out of wedlock. It is possible that there is a community out there where being born outside of wedlock is a dooming disability but statistically, this community is an outlier. If there really was a debilitating prejudice out there, there would not be that many kids born outside of wedlock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

NP. What communities? Do people want to associate with those communities?! I have been happily married to the father of my two teens for 20 years. I wouldn’t want to be around people who would look down upon a child whose parents weren’t married. They seem horribly judgmental and ignorant about life!

I agree with you, but that doesn't change the reality of what I said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

NP. What communities? Do people want to associate with those communities?! I have been happily married to the father of my two teens for 20 years. I wouldn’t want to be around people who would look down upon a child whose parents weren’t married. They seem horribly judgmental and ignorant about life!

I agree with you, but that doesn't change the reality of what I said.

What community thinks like this? Name it or it doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend from a state that doesn’t allow pregnant women to be divorced who found out her DH was cheating on her and no longer wanted to be married to her or be a father early during her second trimester. He moved out of their home and moved in with his girlfriend. She couldn’t file for divorce until after the baby was born. It was pretty horrific for her, being stuck in that situation, unable to have any resolution, while her husband was shacked up with the other woman.

I’m not a fan of that law, because I’ve seen how women can be trapped by it. She has a career, money, and family nearby to help her out, but she was still trapped. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is for women who lack resources to be stuck in marriages they don’t want. It can be so much more different to leave when the baby is present. I can see how laws like this could protect women and children back when women were openly treated as inferior to men and earning a decent living as a single mom would’ve been practically impossible. I don’t see how this does anything to protect women now.

Just pointing out that it is rare for a divorce to be concluded in under five months (which presumably what she has left on the term). Divorce is not instant.

It protects women by definitively resolving paternity to the father and creating a child support obligation.

You can have a default assumption that someone who was married at the time of conception, is the parent of that child. You don't need to be married at the time of birth for that to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

No and no

So husband is beating the crap out of his pregnant wife and she should stay with him bec in these states women have no rights ? You are sick .

They are republicans wake up they wrote it down. CPAC

I disagree with the proposed law, but you have to stay with them -even if you are married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

You can have two parents without them being married. You realize there are plenty of families where there is one parent, or two parents not living together, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

Sorry, no, not true. I would never allow a rapist appear on a birth certificate, as but one example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

"illegitimate"?

What are we living in the 1800's? I know you all want to go back to a different era, but no matter how far back you go, terms like this and the stigma that YOU want to attach are simply not helpful or productive.