No, I’m saying that if a woman gets pregnant from consensual sexual intercourse with someone and claims that it was rape, it puts her and her partner at risk. This isn’t that difficult.
No, I’m saying that if a woman gets pregnant from consensual sexual intercourse with someone and claims that it was rape, it puts her and her partner at risk. This isn’t that difficult.
You think they wouldn’t waste a bunch of time looking into it, when it gives them an opportunity to oppress the bodily autonomy of women? C’mon. This is the police we’re talking about.
Unless they think it’s real, then they won’t bother.
Requiring a police report of rape would get you over halfway there. And I hate having this conversation because I completely disagree with the idea, but acting like it’s impossible to implement doesn’t help anyone. We should argue against it because it’s a bad idea, not because the enforcement would be tricky.
I’m pro-choice, but I think this is a bit silly. For example you could say that having car insurance cover accidents but not intentional damage is the same as covering intentional damage because the only sensible way to determine it is to ask the driver.
Because they believe that women should be subordinate to men, and that their sexuality should be tightly controlled. For the same reason, they want to make it harder to get divorced.
It has never been about religion, that’s just a smokescreen. it’s just control over women.
It’s literally always been the case, people making shit up and having people believe it isn’t a recent change lol
I get your point, but I think if you weigh up the pros and cons, it’s really not a strong enough justification.
You could make the same justification to get rid of online banking, for example - and I’d say that a controlling partner can cause much more harm with control over finances than over voting - but hopefully the counter-argument comes clearer into focus from that example.