this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
447 points (99.1% liked)

News

23297 readers
4436 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The turning point for Destonee was a car ride.

She describes a scene of emotional abuse: Pregnant with her third child, her husband yelled at her while her older two kids listened in the car. "He would call me awful things in front of them," she says. "And soon my son would call me those names too."

She made up her mind to leave him, but when she went to a lawyer to file for divorce, she was told to come back when she was no longer pregnant.

Destonee requested she be identified by only her first name. She says she still lives with abusive threats from her ex-husband. She couldn't end her marriage because Missouri law requires women seeking divorce to disclose whether they're pregnant — and state judges won't finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world 116 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Women are property. That’s conservative shit. They want this to be the norm. All conservatives are bastards.

[–] snownyte@kbin.social 32 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

And I don't understand why any woman votes conservative, knowing that conservatives actively want to destroy their rights. They already done so with abortion.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Because most women don't need or want an abortion and the news doesn't cover the rest.

[–] Regna@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Many, if not most, women (who are either voluntarily sexually active or involuntarily) will eventually need an abortion (due to miscarriage, foetal abnormalities or other crisises), plan B or birth control of some sort, but most will not admit it.

I stock up on plan B and misoprostol to help, or know where to guide people to seek help so that they’re safe medically. I’d quite confidently say that most women, at least that I know, have needed this kind of aid sooner or later in their lives.

[–] AquaTofana@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Worse than that. They just don't care. My mother is a HUGE Conservative, and she had an abortion back in the 80s right before she got pregnant with me. When I confronted her about it, she said: "Well, there are more options more widely available for women who want to avoid pregnancy today than there were back then."

And I asked about women who work pay check to pay check and can't really afford a $50 OTC Plan B pill whenever they want to have sex, and she said "Well, they better afford it. It's cheaper than going to get an abortion even where it is legal!" 😮‍💨

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Lack of empathy. In their minds it will never be them who is tricked into an abusive marriage or will need the abortion or get sick or hurt and need assistance or want things people twll them they shouldn't. Those are the things that happen to the dumb and immoral people do and to their mind those people deserve to struggle as consequences for their sins. They are comfortable feeling that they are counted among the narrowly defined righteous and they will never waver... Because deep down they know that if they let go of that comfort of feeling absolutely resolute they are the model on which the rest of womanhood should aspire to be then they have to reckon with all the pain they caused to people.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

At the base of it please remember anyone who you can define to be in a group by identity are at base still a human. All humans are capable of fucking up, being stupid or tricked with words regardless of their appearance. That there is why your disgust or respect should be assessed at them being a human regardless of their gender. Equal rights and everything

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 76 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty upsetting to begin with, but if you change the wording to: "Pregnant women in Missouri don't have the right to get divorced" it's somehow even worse.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The original intent seems to be the opposite. It was supposed to stop men from divorcing and avoiding financial responsibility of the child, it's in the article.

It's an awful rule even with that in mind though.

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

yeah it's not like they couldn't write something into law that dictates financial responsibility doesn't magically disappear when a divorce goes through. Pretty sure that's how it works in most places.

I don't know much about how USA/Missouri was in 1970, but I'll assume there was/is a lot of laws based around marriage as that was the norm for families back in the days. Might be as simple as the lawmakers being lazy and deciding it was easier to force people to stay married for the duration so they got the full legal framework as "protection".

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Exactly, if you’re married at time of pregnancy and don’t have evidence of infidelity it should be assumed that you’re the father. But this is Missouri, it may be about finances, but it’s unlikely that that’s the entire goal.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

... state judges won't finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.

So, I'm assuming if you knock someone up in Missouri without being married, you don't have to pay child support?

Are judges in Missouri just too damn stupid to include conceived but as yet unborn children in any child support requirements?

Or perhaps, it's just about making sure men can continue to abuse their own "property"?

[–] LimeZest@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 6 months ago

This law came around before DNA sequencing was common, they probably had some kind of archaic law making it hard to pin paternity on an unmarried father since you couldn’t just order a DNA test to show who created the baby.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 45 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

That's crazy

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago

Well domestic violence is a cornerstone of Missouri Republican and the greater Republican party set of values after all.

[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 23 points 6 months ago

Under his eye.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

What? For reals?

[–] BlackNo1@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] Classy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

seriously

Dont glass it. theres good farmland there.

Just virusbomb it. #40kSolutions

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Nah we just gotta do us a reconstruction. We always were supposed to. Unfortunately capitalists really fucked it up

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago
[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Sounds reasonable.

load more comments
view more: next ›