• Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is so that if the woman becomes pregnant, the recently ex-husband have to pay extra alimony for the child AND the child gets to inherit from the biological father. Regardless, the woman will get alimony until she remarries.

    • r_wraith@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is no longer necessary in a time in which paternity tests exist. You are the father of the child your re-married ex-wife just gave birth to, so you have to pay child-support and the child inherits from you. Simple.

        • 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.

            • 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?

                • 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.