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.

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1511·
    7 months ago

    Why does one of these things need to be higher priority than the other? They all need to be fixed. We don’t have to do one at a time.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      245·
      7 months ago

      Because one of those things ends up killing women. The other doesn’t generally end up killing anyone.

      I’m not sure why this has to be spelled out to you.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        617·
        7 months ago

        Nothing needs to be spelled out. They are two separate issues. I never claimed one was better or worse than the other. I was just pointing out that there are other ass-backwards marriage related issues as well. We don’t have to focus on just one fucked up issue at a time to get things done in society.

        Reading comprehension really has gone downhill online, people jumping to conclusions all over the place just because they want to be angry at something or assume everyone else is.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          197·
          7 months ago

          I never claimed one was better or worse than the other.

          You sure implied it by suggesting they should be of equal priority:

          Why does one of these things need to be higher priority than the other? They all need to be fixed. We don’t have to do one at a time.

          I would suggest that most people in this world would consider stopping murder to be the higher priority than stopping fraud. I’m not sure why you don’t, but…

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
            416·
            7 months ago

            So prioritized things have a higher or lower precedence or importance. But if they have equal precedence, then there is no priority. Greater than and less than are not equal.

            You might want to re-read my responses because your reading comprehension of them is lacking. I never said one issue was more important than the other. In fact, I never said they were equal importance either. I just made a comment pointing out there are also other marital law issues.

            You are assuming I said or meant some sort of priority between issues, but I never said one was more important. I said they all needed to be fixed and we don’t have to do one thing at a time. That explicitly doesn’t put any sort of priority on anything.