• supermair@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did people even bother reading the article? A medical exam is literally one of the ways listed to skip the period if a woman does not want to wait:

    The period can be dismissed if the woman agrees to undergo a medical examination to prove she is not pregnant or if she remarries her ex-husband. The period also ends if a woman gives birth.
    
    • r_wraith@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you think that this makes it fair? And easy for women to have tp prove not to be pregnant? What does this medical examination entail? I bet you that it is no simple blood test for hormones either but a physical examination by a Gynecologist.

      • supermair@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I am not sure if my definition of fair matches yours since it can be subjective. Does fair mean “same”? Can fair account for the fact that only one biological sex can become pregnant?

        The focus is only on the fact that women have to wait a period of time before remarrying (min 3 months max the period of pregnancy) while conveniently ignoring the fact that the man has to financially support his ex wife during the entire period and take full financial responsibility of any child born even after the divorce. This waiting period ensures a man can’t just kick out a woman one day and abandon a potential child without any obligations. So if the financial responsibility is not the same, is it unfair to men?

        It is easy to see a headline and jump to conclusions but these topics are much more nuanced. We shouldn’t only focus on rights but also responsibilities.

        • r_wraith@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you read my original comment?
          The man could as easily be financially responsible for a child born after marriage if paternity is proven through a simple test. In that case he would not have to support his ex-wife and she could get maried again. You take away her right to choose and justify that by saying that her ex-husband has to financially support her. Other countries have the same obligations for financial support (if a woman is not able to work to fend for herself) without these prohibitions. Nuanced enough?

          • supermair@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We seem to be going in circles.

            There is a solution that is applicable to any time and place, whether it is 1500 years ago or today, rural or urban, rich or poor. This does not impact the divorce or make it any harder, it simply ensures a man does not skip on his obligations and a child is given what they are entitled to.

            The only caveat is women must wait to remarry (NOT divorce) a certain period - the vast majority of cases where there is no pregnancy is 3 months. The man continues to financially support the woman regardless of whether she can fend for herself or not, but again, you won’t see any posts showing how “unfair” that is. Now if someone does not want to wait this period they can get a test and skip this period. You are making unsubstantiated claims that the test is difficult or more difficult than a praternity test.

            How many people does this actually effect? How many women do you know remarry within 3 months of a divorce? Or get married and the new husband being OK with her being pregnant with another man’s baby during the marriage? This issue is being blown out of proportion when there are legitimate grievances and issues affecting women across the world. Some countries (e.g. Phillipines, Vatican city) don’t even allow divorces to begin with. Interestingly enough, Muslims in Phillipines can get divorced while Christians can’t. Surely those affect more women and affect them more seriously?

            I am sorry if I have not conveyed my point still, but I won’t be replying further. Take care.

            • r_wraith@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, I think I understood your point, I just don’t agree with it. A woman’s rights are curtailed for a certain amount of time and a man’s are not. This law once had a (debatable) justification, which has been made irrelevant by advances in the medical sciences (DNA paternity tests have been publicly available since the 1980s). To stick to this law after over 40 years, to me, points to another motive.