Is it wrong to divorce a spouse who becomes ill?

[JohnDB]

Terminally ill divorcees are about protecting financial assets...the bills get quite expensive and are attachable when married...they literally will kick you out of your home and sell it out from under you. (And still want more) insurance has maximums it will cover...and often even a million dollars won't cover all the medical expenses a person will incur.

However I did run into a case of where a person suffered permanent brain damage. The person survived BUT their whole personality changed to where they were in essence a completely different individual than they were before the brain damage. They were capable and able to take care of themselves...no outward mobility issues or disfigurement....but their personality was completely the opposite of who they once were.

 

[Man of Ethics]

My sister in law developed MS.. Her care cost her parents and her husband everything.. Houses, property, savings etc.

They quietly divorces so she could get financial help and healthcare.

She died at 38.

RIP. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Forgive me for venting. On Twitter I see a lot of hatred toward men. Many such messages get hundreds to hundreds of thousands of likes

I hope these ladies experience Love Story as Jennifer with Oliver leaving when they are diagnosed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My daughter-in-law's mother divorced her father when she was was very young because he was a drunk. She had a live-in boyfriend for many years. After my son married her daughter, her mother decided to marry the live-in boyfriend. A few years later, said new husband was all the way on the west coast working in a shipyard as a welder. After work, he and his work buddies went to a local bar and got hammered. Words were exchanged with another bar patron who was also hammered. When they decided to call it a night, the other patron was waiting outside and bashed new husband in the head, causing major brain damage.

Her Mom helped him through recovery, but he suffers from angry outbursts and is a simpleton. She did not divorce him, but is still married after about 15 years since this happened. Mom has a boyfriend and they actually go out as a trio often. She and new boyfriend seem happy with the arrangement and no one looks down on her because she stays with him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please share your thoughts.

In my marriage ceremony, the pastor specifically said, "For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health." This is because marriage is not about a selfish pursuit of an individual always having a happy, shiny life and abandoning anything and anyone the instant they become less-than-fun. Marriage is a partnership, a commitment to a team for mutual support, comfort, and aid. To walk out the instant it becomes inconvenient is to be in breach of contract, to essentially state that you were using the other person and were lying when you promised otherwise.

So yes, it's wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Forgive me for venting. On Twitter I see a lot of hatred toward men. Many such messages get hundreds to hundreds of thousands of likes

I hope these ladies experience Love Story as Jennifer with Oliver leaving when they are diagnosed.

I can understand your concern, and you might want to remove yourself from the toxic waste pile that is Twitter. I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP, though.

 

[MizMolly]

Not for being ill. If I had an abusive spouse I would wish for his speedy death, but then again, I would not be married to an abuser. If I found out bad things about him after he became Ill, hell yes I would divorce him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To me, if the ill person wants out because they don't want to be a burden to the other person, my only question is what is to happen then?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

You can't force someone to stay with you if they're determined to leave. That being said, if it were my husband, I would do my best to convince him to stay and allow me to fulfill my commitment to stand by him no matter what.

 

[Road Runner]

The Bible states it's only OK for having an unfaithful spouse.

I think abusive relationships (either physically or emotionally) also count and sort of go without saying.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My maternal grandfather, in his early sixties, was dying from emphysema, some time in the 1970s. He was being kept alive, against his clearly-expressed wishes, by the use of modern (for then) and very expensive technology. No useful life, at this point, just lying in a hospital bed, in constant pain, kept alive by machines, as his wealth was being rapidly consumed to pay for it. all.

My grandmother asked the doctors how long they were going to keep that up, and she was told that it would be for as long as the money lasted.

My grandparents were fairly wealthy, but their wealth was rapidly being consumed, with a very real prospect that when it ran out, my grandfather would finally be allowed to die, and my grandmother would be left in poverty.

My grandmother divorced my grandfather, not because she didn't love him, but so that their joint estate would be divided. His half, of course, continued to be consumed by the medical expenses, until it ran out a short while later, at which time he was allowed to die; but my grandmother still had her share, which was more than sufficient to sustain her for the rest of her life.


I would not normally consider illness a just cause for a divorce, but in this case, I see the practical need for it. One way or another, my grandfather was going to die, very shortly, and until he did, the medical expenses involved in keeping him alive were eating their wealth up at a very rapid pace.

It basically got down to a choice of keeping him alive and in pain a short while longer, and leaving his widow penniless, or letting him die a little sooner, and leaving his widow in a a financially-survivable state.

 

[Man of Ethics]

In my marriage ceremony, the pastor specifically said, "For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health." This is because marriage is not about a selfish pursuit of an individual always having a happy, shiny life and abandoning anything and anyone the instant they become less-than-fun. Marriage is a partnership, a commitment to a team for mutual support, comfort, and aid. To walk out the instant it becomes inconvenient is to be in breach of contract, to essentially state that you were using the other person and were lying when you promised otherwise.

So yes, it's wrong.

I guess this is an ideal. Nevertheless, now no fault divorce is the norm in all states and all Western Nations.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Not for being ill. If I had an abusive spouse I would wish for his speedy death, but then again, I would not be married to an abuser. If I found out bad things about him after he became Ill, hell yes I would divorce him.

If I was married I would not leave my wife even if she was mildly abusive or did some horrible things in the past.

I would leave if:
1) She was a danger to me.
2) Marriage became asexual.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Please share your thoughts.

Selfishly wrong and a decision you will regret later in life.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I think abusive relationships (either physically or emotionally) also count and sort of go without saying.

Anyone has an ethical right to leave if their spouse is abusive in any way.

Everyone should leave a severely abusive spouse, but I would never blame the victim for staying.

Some men can tolerate a mildly abusive wife if she is a nymphomaniac.

 

[pknopp]

I think abusive relationships (either physically or emotionally) also count and sort of go without saying.

I have no problem with that but I was just noting what the Bible stated.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

My maternal grandfather, in his early sixties, was dying from emphysema, some time in the 1970s. He was being kept alive, against his clearly-expressed wishes, by the use of modern (for then) and very expensive technology. No useful life, at this point, just lying in a hospital bed, in constant pain, kept alive by machines, as his wealth was being rapidly consumed to pay for it. all.

My grandmother asked the doctors how long they were going to keep that up, and she was told that it would be for as long as the money lasted.

My grandparents were fairly wealthy, but their wealth was rapidly being consumed, with a very real prospect that when it ran out, my grandfather would finally be allowed to die, and my grandmother would be left in poverty.

My grandmother divorced my grandfather, not because she didn't love him, but so that their joint estate would be divided. His half, of course, continued to be consumed by the medical expenses, until it ran out a short while later, at which time he was allowed to die; but my grandmother still had her share, which was more than sufficient to sustain her for the rest of her life.


I would not normally consider illness a just cause for a divorce, but in this case, I see the practical need for it. One way or another, my grandfather was going to die, very shortly, and until he did, the medical expenses involved in keeping him alive were eating their wealth up at a very rapid pace.

It basically got down to a choice of keeping him alive and in pain a short while longer, and leaving his widow penniless, or letting him die a little sooner, and leaving his widow in a a financially-survivable state.

Did your grandmother continue to be there for your granddad after the divorce?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Did your grandmother continue to be there for your granddad after the divorce?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I would assume so. I was a couple of states away while most of this was happening.

Anyway, it was not very long after the divorce that my grandfather's share of the money ran out, and they pulled the plug on him. Maybe a few weeks, maybe a month or two. As I said, although their wealth was considerable, the process of keeping my grandfather artificially alive using 1970s technology was very expensive, and was burning through their wealth very quickly. With it divided in half, my grandmother's share was enough to sustain her for the rest of her life (at least another ten years or so), while my grandfather's equal share of it ran out in a much, much shorter time to pay for all the machines that were being used to delay his inevitable death.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I guess this is an ideal. Nevertheless, now no fault divorce is the norm in all states and all Western Nations.

No, it's not an "ideal". It's actually the baseline minimum purpose of the entire institution of marriage. There literally IS no marriage if you don't have at least that. You just have a roommate you sleep with, and you'd be better off not even wasting your time, because you're getting absolutely nothing out of "marrying" at that point.

The fact that "Western Nations" have completely forgotten what marriage is for and has decided to legally enshrine doing it completely wrong for absolutely no purpose doesn't change that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I was married I would not leave my wife even if she was mildly abusive or did some horrible things in the past.

I would leave if:
1) She was a danger to me.
2) Marriage became asexual.

So the instant one of you develops some sort of illness or condition that affects your reproductive system and you aren't personally getting your jollies, that's it. Out the door, I owe you nothing if you're not servicing me.

Nice.

 

[Man of Ethics]

So the instant one of you develops some sort of illness or condition that affects your reproductive system and you aren't personally getting your jollies, that's it. Out the door, I owe you nothing if you're not servicing me.

Fortunately I will never be married. I never plan to be married.

Had I not been Autistic I would have found a job and a wife.