Poll of the Day > states wanting to ban pregnant people from divorcing

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXee6oD8DCE

Friggin nutters. I can't even fathom why anyone cares about abortion.

I really don't think I can take a discussion seriously when a scantily clad male-voiced Catgirl is talking about the issue. Somethign about it feels... wrong.

Cruddy_horse posted...

I really don't think I can take a discussion seriously when a scantily clad male-voiced Catgirl is talking about the issue. Somethign about it feels... wrong.

Suris is great, has lots of great content

Lokarin posted...

Suris is great, has lots of great content

That doesn't change anything about what I said

I'd take them more seriously than the US Congress or the political talking heads calling themselves "news." <_<

Uh, no. Fuck no. Fuck these states, that's fucking disgusting. This just makes abusers more likely to murder their abused partners.

Cruddy_horse posted...

I really don't think I can take a discussion seriously when a scantily clad male-voiced Catgirl is talking about the issue. Somethign about it feels... wrong.

It's on purpose, lol. Just listen to the audio; I do that with most videos anyway.

I don't understand what benefit they think this could have. At best, it's just going to delay amicable divorces by a few months, since it doesn't stop postpartum divorces. In practice, a couple that wants to separate can still do so regardless of pregnancy, just waiting until the kid is born to sign the papers and make it official. It's going to do nothing to stop kids from having divorced parents, which is about the only potential benefit I could believe they're fishing for (though even then, being raised by parents that should divorce but don't/can't is generally worse for kids than being raised by parents that divorced when they should have).

The only time it'll actually have an impact is when only one party wants out (abusive situations being the most obvious example), and then the impact is overwhelmingly negative because it means that person is trapped in a relationship they don't want (which may even be outright dangerous). Nothing about this makes sense.

It's almost like the Regressives are trying to make this country worse for women than it was at the start of the 19th century, and even worse for "minorities" (who are actually in the vast majority of the population) than it was when Columbus set foot on that island several centuries ago.

Unbelievable bastards. They took womens rights away to get an abortion in the red states and thats still not enough. We have to strip them of every right like it is pre 19th amendment. What benefit could possibly come of this?

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

What benefit could possibly come of this?

Owning the libs. The only platform the Right has now.

Zareth posted...

Owning the libs. The only platform the Right has now.

they're called the republicans cuz everying they do is RElated to pubes

But even then, it's not like loosening divorce laws is a particularly prominent left-wing position. This isn't something the libs are asking for and they're refusing, this is something they've come up with all on their own and said "I bet the libs will call this stupid lol pwnt."

adjl posted...

I don't understand what benefit they think this could have. At best, it's just going to delay amicable divorces by a few months, since it doesn't stop postpartum divorces. In practice, a couple that wants to separate can still do so regardless of pregnancy, just waiting until the kid is born to sign the papers and make it official. It's going to do nothing to stop kids from having divorced parents, which is about the only potential benefit I could believe they're fishing for (though even then, being raised by parents that should divorce but don't/can't is generally worse for kids than being raised by parents that divorced when they should have).

The only time it'll actually have an impact is when only one party wants out (abusive situations being the most obvious example), and then the impact is overwhelmingly negative because it means that person is trapped in a relationship they don't want (which may even be outright dangerous). Nothing about this makes sense.

The benefit is it gives more control over women which is what these room temp IQ right leaning voters want

That must be a room in the middle of winter without a heater...

More Suris content:

The Democrats have spent millions promoting radical republicans because they think it's easier to win by going "hey, at least we're not that guy" instead of actually being good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uriZVY3Vom4

Democrats lack the self awareness to realize that "vote blue no matter who" applies to the other side as well

Vote Red until you're dead

Wrong thread lol

Metalsonic66 posted...

Wrong thread lol

I plead the fifth.

Ferron posted...

The benefit is it gives more control over women which is what these room temp IQ right leaning voters want

But even then, it's not a particularly meaningful amount of control. It just delays divorce by a few months, and even then doesn't prohibit separating until the final paperwork can be signed. Even if they try to take it that far, there are so many ways around any would-be laws to prevent that that unless they outright ban couples from leaving the house if the woman is pregnant (which I can't imagine would ever stand up to any challenges in higher court, even with the fascism-loving suite of judges currently filling it), it would be immediately loopholed into obsolescence. And for those that don't resort to loopholes to separate prematurely, it's still just a few months.

Like, I get that these are people who routinely whack it to the idea of abuse victims not being able to escape, and that's an inevitable consequence of a law like this, but even in that regard this isn't going to achieve much because the victims can still flee.

To be fair, at least the embryo can file taxes

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/02/georgia-embyros-tax-dependents-fetus

Lokarin posted...

To be fair, at least the embryo can file taxes

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/02/georgia-embyros-tax-dependents-fetus

As that one lawyer mentioned, I 100% expect that to result in adding tax fraud charges to the criminal investigations associated with every miscarriage, which just makes the whole experience worse. That's just a performative gesture that will not only cost the state a pretty substantial amount of tax revenue, but a significant amount of additional costs associated with verifying the pregnancy, investigating miscarriages, and jailing people for the crime of not being able to prove that their miscarriage was accidental enough. Very few citizens are likely to see an appreciable net benefit from the extra 7-8 months of claiming a dependent, especially where doctors will have to charge them for the administrative costs of sending the state verification of the pregnancy. This purely amounts to "look at how logically consistent we are!"

Ironically, with a proper health care system that streamlined that administration (mostly with a unified electronic medical record system that could update the state on the mother's pregnancy status with a single click, if the mother consented to it) and ensured expectant mothers had regular prenatal appointments (so any changes were documented and could be reported promptly), as well as abortions being legal and not requiring a criminal investigation, this idea could be very helpful for those preparing for parenthood. Without decent health care and with restrictive anti-abortion laws, though, it's just going to be too many legal loopholes and additional costs for most of the parents that actually need that help to take advantage of it. Most of them are going to either slip through the cracks or end up in jail.