Atlantic: Make Birth Free
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Everyone historically that got married before the 60s did so when marriage still had meaning. If we separate marriage rates you see the massive difference. This eroticism and “love” as the main attributes of marriage came about due to no fault divorce not despite it. We have completely removed accountability to marriage and children. I’m curious how you define no fault divorce since it’s clearly far different than mine.
Historically, you were not even allowed to divorce unless there was adultery or abandonment. No-fault divorce means that you can divorce without such a 'fault'. So even if you punish the party that wants the divorce, that is still way more liberal than it was in the 19th century.
this is where the separation is, what I argued was someone admitting fault. Their actions caused the divorce. This is still rational under fault divorce because it is the equivalent of bankruptcy. You are saying you are incapable of maintaining your responsibility therefore cede all property gained as a result.
All shared property. So not at all the same as bankruptcy.
It is, at least so far as it can be with two parties involved. Unless the other party could prove damage that cost exceeded, for example paying for your wife to get a degree should hold the value monetarily in divorce.