Saturday, March 05, 2005

Allowing Divorce for Pregnant Mothers

The recent ruling in Washington State will not prove to be a good thing for mothers.

Allowing women to divorce while pregnant (the classical Trojan horse strategy) will eventually allow men, always looking for an excuse to dodge their responsibilities anyway, to take advantage of this loophole to divorce pregnant women leaving them without provisions for housing, food, medical care and other necessities.

Women are vulnerable when pregnant. It is NOT the time to be hit with divorce papers and have to prepare to relocate into a friend's or relatives' house or apartment, worry about bills being paid or being able to have medical coverage for routine prenatal care.

As many people know, the FIRST thing an attorney will advise a husband to do is to immediately empty ALL joint checking/savings accounts while at the same time to STOP paying all bills for the upkeep of the marital household from the mortgage or rent to the electric and phone bill, cut off ALL joint credit cards, and begin transferring as many joint balances to spouse's card as possible; thus using up all of pregnant mothers' available credit.

This is standard operating procedure, standard. It is an attempt to force the lesser income party (which is still usually women, pregnant mother, a given) to settle as quickly as possible with as few marital assets as possible.

Well, of course, now many will say, well Judge will eventually straighten it all out making allowances for these discrepancies. Sure, I say MAYBE in a couple of weeks or months, maybe it will be straightened out. Sadly, however, a pregnant womens' needs are immediate: housing, food, vitamins, ongoing medical care, etc., and these needs cannot always wait for the pace of American justice.

Then, of course, along with the threat of winding up virtually penniless out in the street, will be the usual emotional blackmail of a 'custody war' ensuing if this is not settled by the time infant is born.

Again, standard operating procedure today, very standard.

Overall this is an extremely stressful time for a pregnant woman anyway, thus the last thing she needs is to have to deal with a divorce.

In spite of the fact that it is two women featured this week as being the initiators of divorces while pregnant, mothers do NOT be fooled. The two women featured in the articles below, both classical Trojan horses'(asses), if I may say so myself, are not representative of most pregnant women.

Most of us dwell in the vast middle of the standard bell-shaped curve, but BOTH of these examples of mothers divorcing while pregnant are more representative of the small group of pregnant women who exist at either end of the spectrum.

The bottom line is that the people who overall have the most to gain from having the legal right to divorce while spouse is pregnant are husbands, not their pregnant wives. Allowing men to divorce while wife is pregnant will put them in the exact same legal position of a boyfriend, who after getting a woman pregnant, is responsible for NOTHING until after he is determined to be the father of child AFTER birth, so basically we will be allowing ALL men the potential to do the same thing.

Like I said, classical Trojan horses'(asses) strategy.


State House passes bills on DNA testing, divorce
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
OLYMPIA -- The state House on Monday passed a bill allowing convicted felons to request DNA testing that could exonerate them.

The House also passed a bill that would prevent judges from using a woman's pregnancy as the sole reason for denying a divorce.

The divorce bill was inspired by the real-life case of Shawnna Hughes. A Spokane County Superior Court judge ruled last year that because Hughes' ex-husband didn't know she was pregnant at the time the divorce was granted, the divorce was illegal and must be revoked.

Because Hughes was on public assistance, the state had objected to the divorce because it might leave the state unable to pursue a father for repayment of welfare money used to support the child.

Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle, said the Spokane ruling wasn't an isolated incident.

"There is no uniformity in the law nor in how judges view pregnancy in divorce proceedings," Dickerson said. "Similar rulings have been made on both sides of the Cascades."

The bill passed unanimously and now goes to the Senate.

Information courtesy of http://Seattlepi.newsource.com



Shawana Hughes is NOT representative of most pregnant women.

First of all she is already a self-contained economic unit (being supported on public assistance) depending upon nobody but the state to provide for all of her needs. Whether or not she divorces is immaterial, as her husband, as well as boyfriend of child she is carrying, are BOTH in prison 'BOTH' one a drug dealer, another a gang banger. Thus neither of these men are a factor in her life for providing any economic wherewithal whatsoever.

They simply are not relevant in this area.

Shawana Hughes has all of her economic needs taken care of from her rent to her medical care. Additionally she is assured of SOLE CUSTODY of this child, as well as the others, since BOTH of the fathers of her brood are in prison. Which is not a given for all mothers in a divorced while pregnant situation, as depending upon a number of variables a pregnant woman facing divorce could also shortly thereafter be face-to-face with losing her infant as well.

Shawna Hughes, divorcing while pregnant, will pretty much impact only her. She already has all of her financial and medical needs (as well as the needs of her children) cared for whether or not she's married. Thus, her decision to divorce while pregnant is not reflective of what is appropriate for the mainstream of pregnant mothers. Many of those mothers NEED their husbands to be married to them and legally responsible to provide all the material things that are required to maintain their lifestyle, while mother, herself, focuses on the most important job which should be bringing forth a normal, healthy, reasonably high-functioning infant.


Now we will examine the second case.


LOS ANGELES (Reuters)

Model turned actress Denise Richards has filed for divorce from actor Charlie Sheen, her husband of 2 1/2 years, according to court papers made public on Thursday.

Richards, 34, who is six months pregnant, filed divorce papers in Los Angeles on Wednesday and asked for custody of the couple's year-old daughter as well as the baby she is expecting with Sheen.

Sheen, 39, whose film credits include "Wall Street" and "Platoon," is currently starring in the CBS sitcom "Two and a Half Men."

He met Richards in 2000 after a tumultuous decade that included convictions for drug abuse, an attack on his then girlfriend and an association with Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss.

The court papers listed irreconcilable differences as the reason for seeking the divorce. There was no comment from spokesmen for the couple.

Information Courtesy of Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.



Once again mothers, let's not allow ourselves to be fooled by the surface disparities in the two situations between the pregnant women, Denise Richards, in this article and the pregnant woman in the previous one, Shawna Hughes.

Denise Richards, again, like Shawna Hughes, is really a self-contained economic unit. She was a model-actress BEFORE she met Charlie Sheen (and whether or not he gives her anything and I'm sure he'll give her something), nevertheless, she will be able to function financially quite well without him. Let's look at the example of Liz Hurley, for instance. Steven Bing, her child's father, gives her nothing, nada, zip (he's only a freakin billionaire after all) but he puts all the child support he's supposed to be giving her into a 'college fund' for their son. Which if you believe either Hurley or her kid is going to see a dime of that money, by the way, I have a lovely large bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, but that's another story.

Anyway, careers such as acting and modeling revolve around very independent schedules (not like most of us who need to be at a job from 9:00 to 5:00, five days a week) and if you are important enough, many of these studio heads will provide separate dressing rooms for you, which can be luxurious enough to function as a small luxury apartment on the set. Most women like this, make much MORE money then the average person. So Denise Richards is not just making more money, but has a place to bring her infants (with their nurse/caretaker), which is probably just steps away from where she will be working.

Actually it's the situation MOST mothers would LOVE to have, but except for the rare exceptions, never will.

Thus, Denise Richards, like Shawna Hughes, is really a self-contained economic unit independent of her husband, and yet still able to spend more time with her children then MOST OF THE REST OF US MOTHERS ever will (again, just like Shawna Hughes).

Now regarding custody issues, ironically enough both Denise Richards and Shawna Hughes are in very similar situations vis-à-vis custody.

Charlie Sheen has been one of those Hollywood 'badboys' now since he was in his mid-20s, I think, and is probably the legal equivalent of Shawna Hughes's husband and boyfriend. The only difference between the three being that Charlie Sheen is not in prison for his offenses. But he, like them, has a record as long as your arm involving drug offenses, drunken brawls, beating up his girlfriend, carrying on with his 'posse' of Hollywood idiots, in and out of trouble for the last decade or so.

Anyway, I think looking at the moral, legal and character issues here, Denise Richards is a shoo-in for custody as well.

I think even Charlie Sheen might agree with that one.

Thus I think it is fair to say that while Shawna Hughes exists at one end of the bell-shaped curve, Denise Richards exists at the other; neither of these women, however, very representative of the vast middle of the curve where many pregnant women reside.

To sum up, the idea of divorce while pregnant, although currently being painted as a good for women, is one of those ideas (like communism) that will hopefully enter the 'dustbin of history' sooner, rather then later.

It is not something the average pregnant mother should be made to deal with while in a vulnerable state emotionally, physically and often financially. Being in this state could result in homelessness for her while pregnant and might even eventually cost her custody of child at birth. Since no court will award custody to a homeless woman or someone doubling up with friends or relatives, or very few will anyway.

Stability is the key word here that pregnant women need to be focusing on and divorce is the polar opposite of stability for pregnant women and their children.

The people hawking this as a new 'right' for women are misguided (as per the example of the two women in the articles above) as both of these women are in unusual situations, which many pregnant women are not in. Many pregnant women work until either just before or after delivery and then wish to take the 3/6 months in maternity leave that is provided by most jobs today. Mother uses that time to recover from her ordeal, as well as to bond with her infant before having to return to the 'hurley-burley' of work.

Taking advantage of this leave, requires a stable home with a husband who is willing to provide the lion's share of income to maintain that stable home, until mother is back at work again.

I think it is fair to say that most pregnant women are not self-contained economic units who can just afford to divorce (or be divorced) while pregnant. Most pregnant women are not on public assistance where everything from rent money to medical coverage will be provided for them via a benevolent state; or a model-actress who is going to be given the equivalent of a luxury apartment on set to have someone watching the children within, while making millions of dollars just a few steps away.

I wish it could happen that way for most mothers, I really do, but planning the future on either of those two things happening is going to be a long shot for most pregnant women.

Thus, let's just say no right now and make it clear that we are against allowing divorce of a woman while pregnant.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, the woman invovled in the case that this law - to allow women the right to divorce when pregnant - was the one seeking the divorce. BECAUSE HER HUSBAND WAS HITTING HER. By your logic, a divorce is more dangerous than spousal abuse. WOMEN ARE NOT PROPERTY AND SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEAVE THEIR HUSBANDS. The woman in this case won her divorce and then a judge intervened to dissolve it - because they wanted to determine the "legitimacy" of the child first! If this isn't the most backward, feudal logic, I don't know what is. And defending this - especially in today's political climate when those in the highest offices of the land would gladly make divorce IMPOSSIBLE since it is a "sin" - is AT BEST misguided. Supporting the government to say a woman doesn't have the right to leave her husband IS DANGEROUS. Open your eyes. This is not about protecting the stereotypical vulnerable pregnant woman. Quite the contrary. It's about TO WHOM does she belong - herself or her husband (who, in this case, was abusive)? THIS SHOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT TO ANSWER.

NYMOM said...

This woman's husband was in jail as was the boyfriend...so this was NOT about abuse...but about allowing a pregnant woman to GET a divorce...and now, of course, since it's okay pregnant women can BE divorced as well...

Anonymous said...

So pregnant women should universally be completely cared for by the husband (whether or not he's the father?)

I'm not saying I disagree, but both feminists (women do not "need" men) and men (why should I pay when it isn't my baby, even though we're married) might disagree.

How do you dismiss both feminists' and men's concerns there? And why should some gal who decided to screw every delivery man merit the same rights as a woman who got preggers by her own true husband, by the way?

I'm a woman, but I'm not getting the logic here. It seems not only tilted (which I can understand due to the vulnerability of pregnancy) but utterly unbalanced.

NYMOM said...

"So pregnant women should universally be completely cared for by the husband (whether or not he's the father?)

I'm not saying I disagree, but both feminists (women do not "need" men) and men (why should I pay when it isn't my baby, even though we're married) might disagree."

Sadly when you marry someone, by law you accept the full responsibility for that person until you are divorced or they pass on as they accept the same for you.

Just as a wife would be responsible for the debts of a husband who was irresponsible and ran up a credit card he (they) couldn't afford or didn't pay his income tax or even had a child while married to another woman (as yes, Virginia, there are states where step persons CAN be forced to assume financial responsibility for stepchildren), so too husbands are and should be responsible for wife's bills while pregnant...

Once she has child, husband can always get a paternity test and at that time divorce and not be responsible for her or child going forward...

Until that time however you are and should be responsible...just as wife would be responsible for the debts of an irresponsible husband...

Judges don't prorate marital debt according to good behavior...



"And why should some gal who decided to screw every delivery man merit the same rights as a woman who got preggers by her own true husband, by the way?"

Because one thing has nothing to do with the other...

For instance, if you found out your husband was screwing all your neighbors' wives everytime they left for work, would that mean a Judge would say okay you're not responsible for his share of the marital debt then????

I don't think so...

People need to understand that you assume a financial obligation to each other when you marry...and if you made a bad choice, do NOT think that everyone else is going to absolve you of your responsibility because of your husband or wife's irresponsible behavior...nor should they...

Anonymous said...

Well it sounds like that really gives women full license to behave irresponsibly and immorally. It's pure favoritism and special treatment for women over men.

Your example doesn't hold because men aren't generally the ones incurring marital debt.

Sounds like a free ride and high times for immoral women.

As a decent human being I would NEVER marry someone just to do that to him. Any woman who would isn't worthy of ANY man marrying her. Encouraging it in law is reprehensible.

As a woman yourself, I don't see why you have to denigrate us all so horribly. Decent women would not do such things to anyone, much less their husbands. This is why women get a bad name.

NYMOM said...

"Your example doesn't hold because men aren't generally the ones incurring marital debt.

Sounds like a free ride and high times for immoral women."

That isn't true...Men make more, have higher limits on their credit cards because of it...of course, they probably generate more debt...just as higher income households generate more debt then lower income ones.

Plus I believe it is safe to say that men cheat more...but no one takes that into consideration during a divorce today and saids well you know she was such a good woman married to such a lowlife. Let's just give her a little extra money/property here because of it...do any Judges do that??? No...


"As a decent human being I would NEVER marry someone just to do that to him. Any woman who would isn't worthy of ANY man marrying her. Encouraging it in law is reprehensible."

Encourage what? What are you talking about? You get your wife pregnant, you stay married until after she delivers the baby... PERIOD...

"I'm a woman, but I'm not getting the logic here."

Well maybe you should go back to school then and get some more education as the logic is pretty simple...When you are married to someone and they get pregnant, you STAY married to them until they either abort or deliver child...

Okay...

It's not brain surgery but simple common sense I think...

Anonymous said...

"That isn't true...Men make more, have higher limits on their credit cards because of it...of course, they probably generate more debt...just as higher income households generate more debt then lower income ones."

And 75% of the marriage income is spent by the wife.

"You get your wife pregnant, you stay married until after she delivers the baby... PERIOD..."

What she's talking about is when he WASN'T who got his wife pregnant. Take your blinds off.

"When you are married to someone and they get pregnant, you STAY married to them until they either abort or deliver child..."
When you are married to someone, you get pregnant only of him, and stay faithful until death sets you apart.

NYMOM said...

"When you are married to someone and they get pregnant, you STAY married to them until they either abort or deliver child..."

This is the LEGAL situation as it is and should be vis-a-vis marriage and pregnancy.



"When you are married to someone, you get pregnant only of him, and stay faithful until death sets you apart."

This is the MORAL situation and as you know our courts CANNOT rule on morality...

Anonymous said...

"This is the LEGAL situation as it is and should be vis-a-vis marriage and pregnancy."

"Should" isn't "is".

"This is the MORAL situation and as you know our courts CANNOT rule on morality..."
But they can rule on legality, and it is legal to divorce a cheating wife, even if she's pregnant, when you're not the father. After all, she can go to the real father to ask for help.

NYMOM said...

"But they can rule on legality, and it is legal to divorce a cheating wife, even if she's pregnant, when you're not the father. After all, she can go to the real father to ask for help."

AND as I said before the law does NOT distinguish between a cheating wife and a good church-going one on the issue of divorce...can you understand that...

This law applies to EVERY WOMAN NOW...ALL OF US..

NOW it is legal for a pregnant woman to be divorced...it's that simple...this was another law passed with the support of women who just weren't thinking very clearly when they supported it...

But it's a moot issue now, it's passed...

...a decade or so from now women will be once again kicking themselves in the a@@ over this one and wondering who were the dumbells who supported it...so give me your name so I can let them know one of the main ones...

Anonymous said...

"AND as I said before the law does NOT distinguish between a cheating wife and a good church-going one on the issue of divorce...can you understand that..."

Yes, I can understand it. Can you understand that law indeed do distinguish between both, when child support is the issue?

"NOW it is legal for a pregnant woman to be divorced...it's that simple..."
Yes, as you said in your other thread, now women can have a fulfilling life without men. What? That they didn't want men's presence but they wanted men's support? Oops... perhaps they indeed screwed it up :D:D:D

"and wondering who were the dumbells who supported it..."
What about the National Organization of Women?

"so give me your name so I can let them know one of the main ones..."
Ok, my name is MAN.

NYMOM said...

"AND as I said before the law does NOT distinguish between a cheating wife and a good church-going one on the issue of divorce...can you understand that..."
Yes, I can understand it. Can you understand that law indeed do distinguish between both, when child support is the issue?"

No...you are wrong...child support is for the child...it's not awarded according to how GOOD a mother is...and child support is an issue AFTER the child is born...how is a pregnant woman supposed to exist up to that time...



"NOW it is legal for a pregnant woman to be divorced...it's that simple..."
Yes, as you said in your other thread, now women can have a fulfilling life without men. What? That they didn't want men's presence but they wanted men's support? Oops... perhaps they indeed screwed it up :D:D:D"

Fine...what are women who are divorced while pregnant supposed to do until they deliver their children...move into a cave in the hills somewhere or maybe a homeless shelter as I have heard of men dumping pregnant girlfriends off in those...

The point of marriage while pregnant is that a husband is still responsible for a wife until they are divorced...NOW since women can be divorced while pregnant it means EVERY man can now be like a single father, who is responsible for NOTHING until AFTER the birth and paternity is established...he doesn't have to worry about providing a pregnant women with so much as meal or a vitamin...



"and wondering who were the dumbells who supported it..."
What about the National Organization of Women?"

This means nothing to me as they have supported much legislation that I've disageed with...



"so give me your name so I can let them know one of the main ones..."
Ok, my name is MAN."

It figures...men always looking for ways to dodge responsibility...here's just another example...

Anonymous said...

"No...you are wrong...child support is for the child...it's not awarded according to how GOOD a mother is...and child support is an issue AFTER the child is born...how is a pregnant woman supposed to exist up to that time..."

You are wrong here, dear. It's not "for the child". It's "for HIS child". If the child isn't his, he has no obligation whatsoever to him.

"Fine...what are women who are divorced while pregnant supposed to do until they deliver their children..."

Who cares? After all, it's their child, their pregnancy, their freedom. Why should we care about her? After all, you said we contribute NOTHING.

"men always looking for ways to dodge responsibility..."
If we have NOTHING to do with it, then what responsibility are you talking about?

Dear, why don't you say what you really want: Men should give women their income and slave themselves supporting them, so women can be free. You know what? Women can be as free as they want. And freedom also means she earns her own money, cleans her own house and cooks her own money. Pregnant or not, it is irrelevant. After all, why can't other free women take care of her sister?

NYMOM said...

Once again playing stupid and refusing to discuss the serious issues that I post about here...

Allowing men to divorce their wives while pregnant will result in MANY men chosing to divorce their wives when they are pregnant in order to absolve themselves of any financial responsibility until AFTER the birth of the child...

AND men will continue becoming more and more useless in this society...so you're all just condemning yourselves by your own actions.

Anonymous said...

"Allowing men to divorce their wives while pregnant will result in MANY men chosing to divorce their wives when they are pregnant in order to absolve themselves of any financial responsibility until AFTER the birth of the child..."

If a man divorces his wife when she's pregnant of HIS child, he's scum. If she's pregnant NOT with HIS child, she's scum and he's right in giving her the boot. So, she should be sure to have children only from her husband.

"AND men will continue becoming more and more useless in this society"

Who is the judge to decide who is useless or not? You?

"...so you're all just condemning yourselves by your own actions."

In what way we are condemning ourselves? You said yourself, we are living the life we want to live. So, we're ok. It's you who is not having the life you want, because we oh-so-evil men are refusing giving you happiness in a silver platter.

NYMOM said...

"If a man divorces his wife when she's pregnant of HIS child, he's scum. If she's pregnant NOT with HIS child, she's scum and he's right in giving her the boot. So, she should be sure to have children only from her husband."

But how is he to know that until after she delivers the child and is DNA tested...we can't have men divorcing their wives all over the place under this pretext can we????

I mean this could rapidly turn into a game of Russian Roulette...



"In what way we are condemning ourselves? You said yourself, we are living the life we want to live. So, we're ok. It's you who is not having the life you want, because we oh-so-evil men are refusing giving you happiness in a silver platter."

You're condemning yourselves through your selfishness...

Anonymous said...

"But how is he to know that until after she delivers the child and is DNA tested...we can't have men divorcing their wives all over the place under this pretext can we????"

AFAIK, DNA can be tested even in the womb. And if a guy uses this reason as grounds of divorce, he should be ready to pay all the costs related to the test (which, if the kid isn't his, should be repaid by the mother).

"You're condemning yourselves through your selfishness..."
And you're condemning yourselves through your man-bashing and excessive demands. What is the difference?

NYMOM said...

"AFAIK, DNA can be tested even in the womb. And if a guy uses this reason as grounds of divorce, he should be ready to pay all the costs related to the test (which, if the kid isn't his, should be repaid by the mother)."

Any test performed on a fetus inutero has the possibility to endangering the fetus...

You mean to tell me that you would endanger the life of a child JUST to ensure that you were the father...that couldn't wait until AFTER the birth...

So yes, I repeat, you are selfish...

AND remember what I have said before about the use of acronyms...I don't know what that one you used meant but if you post anything vulgar, it will be deleted...

I know you all use that filthy language on the other blogs you post on but I'm not allowing it here...

Anonymous said...

"Any test performed on a fetus inutero has the possibility to endangering the fetus..."

That small detail has never prevented mothers from aborting their children, hasn't it? I'd say that's a lot more endangering to the fetus than a simple DNA test.

and AFAIK = As Far As I Know. You can find it everywhere in the web.

And I see you didn't say a thing about women's selfishness and the way it drives men away.

NYMOM said...

"Any test performed on a fetus inutero has the possibility to endangering the fetus..."

That small detail has never prevented mothers from aborting their children, hasn't it? I'd say that's a lot more endangering to the fetus than a simple DNA test."

So I guess it's okay with you then to perform a test in utero that might destroy or deform your own child...just to assure yourself that your are the child's father BEFORE it's born...because people you don't even know have abortions...

That's your reason...

Well it doesn't even make any sense.

Anonymous said...

So I guess it's okay with you then to perform a test in utero that might destroy or deform your own child...just to assure yourself that your are the child's father BEFORE it's born...because people you don't even know have abortions...

If the guy has some reason to believe that the child may not be his, it's a good reason.

Besides, what difference it does, if he divorces her during or after pregnancy? If the kid is not his, and he divorces after the delivery, he still has no obligation whatsoever to support the slut and her bastard.

Callum said...

NYMOM Said:"Sadly when you marry someone, by law you accept the full responsibility for that person until you are divorced or they pass on as they accept the same for you. "

Callum says: Exactly what "responsibilities" do women legally have towards their husbands then?

Anonymous said...

"Callum says: Exactly what "responsibilities" do women legally have towards their husbands then?"

Absolutely none. What are you thinking, that only because they marry they have to lose their freedom and independence? :P

At least, NYMOM says it clearly: Women have all the rights and none of the responsibilities. Anything different is unbearably oppressive (for women, that is. Men shouldn't be so selfish and accept their bromide without a complain).

I wonder were is her husband.

NYMOM said...

"Besides, what difference it does, if he divorces her during or after pregnancy? If the kid is not his, and he divorces after the delivery, he still has no obligation whatsoever to support the slut and her bastard."

That's right...but it makes a difference to the rest of us in society as to how the woman get supported until she delivers her child, whoever the father is...

NYMOM said...

"Callum says: Exactly what "responsibilities" do women legally have towards their husbands then?"

Husbands and wives are BOTH responsible for each other's debts including credit cards, loans and medical bills...

Same for both...

NYMOM said...

"Absolutely none. What are you thinking, that only because they marry they have to lose their freedom and independence?

At least, NYMOM says it clearly: Women have all the rights and none of the responsibilities. Anything different is unbearably oppressive (for women, that is. Men shouldn't be so selfish and accept their bromide without a complain).

I wonder were is her husband."

Both husbands and wives have exactly the same rights and responsibilities, one to the other...

Most of my proposals if you notice are geared towards changing the situation vis-a-vis never-married men having rights to children, as they should have none...

AND regarding my ex-husband, like many other things, that is none of your business.

Anonymous said...

"Most of my proposals if you notice are geared towards changing the situation vis-a-vis never-married men having rights to children, as they should have none..."

No rights, no responsibilities. If those men have no rights to children, they they shouldn't have responsibilities, either.

And since I'm not married to any single mom, I'm not responsible of providing a cent to support them or her offspring, whether directly or through my taxes.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To the above... I am pregnant and he did cheat and wants to marry the other woman who he currently lives with. Can we say felony adultery? Yes, i'm in Oklahoma. I left him, of course he forced me by saying he was not going to pay rent. I am not my own economic unit. I am below 150% the poverty level. I'm on TANF and live in section 8 for free. Which automatically kicks me into the child support bracket...and so forth. You guys should not be aruging about whether you can or can't get divorced. you should be arguing why there isnt a legal support system in place for either way. Another point.. whats going to happen to my newborn if i have no money for a lawyer and he does and legal aid wont take me? Why does it take an average of 3 yrs to establish child support in my situation if you don't have a divorce? Thats some things that should be taken into consideration... One more... I am a displaced homemaker and cannot file taxes and he gets to claim the kids.... tanf might take it back but that still leaves me with absolutely nothing! how bout them apples.....thank you

Anonymous said...

In Norway, if a man has sex 1x with a woman and she gets pregnant, she goes to the court and puts his name in a book and the country/ state sends the man a letter at his last known address notifying him, if the man does not contest within 2 weeks, life long paternity is automatically assigned to him and for 18 years his checks are garnished. If the man does not wish to pay for his child he must leave the country.
Judges in Norway do not care if the man had sex with the mother behind a hotel in a one night stand or was married to her for 10 years, the fact is, a baby is here and it needs to be fed for 18 years minimum and the man is responsible for keeping his address current and being responsible for where he puts his penis.
the lowlife model tries to evade child support by calling the woman a slut and the child a basterd, that does not work anywhere in the world. Men must wisen up as to where they put thier sperm deposits and women must keep thier legs crossed until a man proves he can provide and support a wife and child.

Anonymous said...

move to Norway then

Anonymous said...

I am terribly saddened by the posts on the thread. I am a married mother-to-be just looking for some guidance. My husband is emotionally and physically abusive. I want a divorce, but since I am a housewife, I have no way of leaving my situation without having to deal with the hardships of homelessness and poverty. I cannot find an employer williing to employ a woman 5 months pregnant. I am not trying to take advantage of my husband's finances, but what am I to do when I can't secure a way to take care of myself and my unborn child? I am totally at my wit's end on this. I hurt too much to continue with this marriage, but if I can't even take care of myself and baby in utero without him, is it really worth anything?

Anonymous said...

This is just another way of the government controlling the situation. If a person wants a divorce it does not matter which party, they should be granted it at any time.

If women are working they should be able to handle the situation. The government should stay out of it. They were not in it when they first got married or when they started having problems in their marriage, so they should not be in it if they are getting a divorce during pregancy.

NYMOM said...

Didn't you read the previous comment?

Common sense tells us we cannot be allowing men to walk away from pregnant women when they have a built-in obligation which the government (meaning you and me)will be obligated to assume...

Anonymous said...

I am currently 5 months pregnant and am in a very unsteady/abusive marriage. I work part time (16hrs a week at 7.00 an hour) and am a house wife the rest of the time. I have no desire to keep my marriage going BUT having said that, I also have no desire to be "homeless" and left with no help what so ever on my medical bills. I did not get pregnant on my own why on earth should I solely be responsible for medical bills etc? Right now I am fully covered and hve already payed the very small fee off 100.00 for my pregnancy, birth, post natal care. If I leave my husband I will not under any circumstances be able to pay for the pregnancy, birth or post natal care. As my income will simply not allow it. I have been trying to find another, higher paying, job to allow me to leave my husband. It's simply not happening. No one wants to hire a woman who is 5 months pregnant. That's just, unfortunately, the way it is. I moved across the country to be with my husband. Away from my high paying job, family and everything I know. Now if I leave I have to go stay with a family member, accept the financial responsibility for this pregnancy on my own and there after UNTIL I can street collections child support. And by then, the financial damage will have already been done. My husband wants the marriage to end as well. So if one day he decides to proceed with a divorce and leave me with nothing, no one is stopping him NOR saying "wait you have a pregnant wife and while you may not need to fully support her any longer, you NEED to help with this pregnancy and child. My point is simply this. If I, like Denise Richards, was able to support myself than I would leave no problem. But right now I am counting the days until my child is born and her medical care is taken care of at least until after her birth, and praying my husband does not divorce me at least until this day comes. I'd he decides to divorce me tomorrow than I am on my own. He will legally owe me nothing and I will be stuck with every single responsibility on my own. Even though I did not conceive this child in my own. People stop judging until you have been in this situation. It's harder than anyone who hasn't witnessed it first hand can even begin to imagine.

NYMOM said...

Exactly what I have been saying all along. A lot of these laws and public policies being passed are very useful to MEN...but I notice they always paint them as being passed to protect women and/or children from abuse.

It's usually total and complete baloney.