say made several assumptions. One assumption she expanded on was one that discussed how society is becoming more in-tune with the idea of self-gratification. Though not everyone may agree, I do. More and more people are worrying about themselves and what will happen to them in specific situations, rather than worrying about what will happen to everyone involved. One of the more recognizable assumptions made was one discussing how divorce has hurt children. This seems to be an assumption shared by many. Children of broken homes are deeply affected by divorce. The main question I want to pursue is this: "Is no-fault divorce an easy way out, or is a healthy way of resolving difficult marriages?" In the article "Abolish No-Fault Divorce?," Representative Dalman expresses her position when she states, "Two people take the vows of marriage, but under no-fault divorce laws, only one can dissolve the commitment. It's easier to end a marriage than it is to break a contract for buying a household appliance. Disposable marriage cheapens the commitment and degrades our vows of fidelity and lifelong love." Divorce rates across the nation have soared since the implementation of no-fault divorce standards in the early 1970s. (Ager 1) Dalman continues her argument by following with, "Prevention is the best solution to any problem. While an educational program can't prevent all divorce, it does lay the groundwork for stronger unions. Families educated about problem-solving skills have a better chance for successful relationships." Ager has a different view. She says, "Human relationships are fragile and prone to disease. Not all marriages deserve to be saved, and I'd argue that divorce has redeemed more human spirits than it has doomed." She then goes on to ask: "....what about encouraging women to become financially self-sufficient before they become mothers? What about keeping better track of dead-beat dads? What about government-fina...
