• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Women have to sign up for Selective Services.

Should women sign up


  • Total voters
    77
It's a waste of money. I can't even imagine a time when we'd draft men, much less women. If we get in that situation, we could always initiate it. Otherwise, it's a waste of taxpayer money to maintain the information.

But what you'd be initiating is a list of every adult American over the age of 18 during a crisis that requires the draft...

My point being, that if there were a situation in which the US needed a draft, the situation would probably be quite bleak. The time it would take to register everyone would add months, even before there was a draft itself. Why not just have everyone sign up when they're 18, and if the country is faced with such a dire emergency that we would need to draft our (obese and undisciplined) civilians then it could be done immediately?

In theory. Why not just keep a roll call before the crisis occurs?
 
I absolutely feel that women should have to meet selective service requirements, just like men, as a matter of principle. That said, in my experience, the vast majority of women in the military are absolutely worthless and take a disproportionate number of early advances in rank for all the work they do laying on their back.

There are many extremely smart and hard working military females I have met, both officer and enlisted, but if it were up to me women would still be doing jobs that aren't forward deployed, like the nurses. Before I was in the military I was completely the other way on this, but then I saw what happens when a carrier goes on deployment and, for one reason or the other, half of all the females are gone within a month (more work/watch and less sleep for the males who remain! Thank God for equal pay!).

The drop off is definitely less drastic among the officers, but since they don't do any of the work it's a moot point.

The New York Times reports:

Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say. . .

The ship, whose 1,250 crew members included 360 women, returned to her home port here on Friday. . . .

Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant.​

Who here is good at doing complex math calculations?
 
A government that drafts their citizens into war is declaring that they own the peoples bodies and can force them to kill or to put their life in in jeopardy whenever it suits them. Anyone that supports this activity supports slavery and giving the government complete control over the peoples bodies. At the moment this control is limited to men, which at least leaves women free, but to expand it to women would mean that the government owns the bodies of all the people in the land. No, I can not support that.

We need to end the draft and stop threatening young men with the prospect of being forced to kill or be killed for the benefit of the state.

Saying this, I don't feel women should be in the military at all.
 
The New York Times reports:

Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say. . .

The ship, whose 1,250 crew members included 360 women, returned to her home port here on Friday. . . .

Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant.​

Who here is good at doing complex math calculations?
Thing is though - you either have to:

  1. Accept that some percentage of female military members will become pregnant, and set up consequences and support for same.
  2. Not allow female military members to serve in a position where it will become an issue.
  3. Prevent female military members from becoming pregnant via contraceptives or something.

OR some combination of the above, I dunno.

Way I see it, there is no possible way to prevent SOME percentage of female military members from becoming pregnant, apart from mandated contraceptive implants or something. And those things have side-affects, I think.

I would say that some form of being kicked out of the military might be in order for females who get pregnant while in a position where such negatively effects things (depending on a vast amount of variables). At the least, if they know becoming pregnant might endanger fellow military members, doing so could be considered counter to whatever is considered proper for a military member (unsure on the correct words here).

Perhaps that seems unreasonable of me.

Hmm...

The way I look at the military, it's primary purpose is protecting the USA. Anything that detracts from that should be at the least questioned strongly. And IMO, a female military member getting pregnant while in a position where doing so endangers the mission is a negative. That's probably subjective though...

Bah.
 
But what you'd be initiating is a list of every adult American over the age of 18 during a crisis that requires the draft...

My point being, that if there were a situation in which the US needed a draft, the situation would probably be quite bleak. The time it would take to register everyone would add months, even before there was a draft itself. Why not just have everyone sign up when they're 18, and if the country is faced with such a dire emergency that we would need to draft our (obese and undisciplined) civilians then it could be done immediately?

In theory. Why not just keep a roll call before the crisis occurs?

I don't actually have strong feelings one way or another on the whole prospect. I certainly see your point. I'm just not sure it wouldn't take almost the same political will to get women to register as it would be to institute a draft. *shrug*

I do agree with you, though. The situation would have to be bleak indeed.
 
A government that drafts their citizens into war is declaring that they own the peoples bodies and can force them to kill or to put their life in in jeopardy whenever it suits them. Anyone that supports this activity supports slavery and giving the government complete control over the peoples bodies. At the moment this control is limited to men, which at least leaves women free, but to expand it to women would mean that the government owns the bodies of all the people in the land. No, I can not support that.

We need to end the draft and stop threatening young men with the prospect of being forced to kill or be killed for the benefit of the state.

Saying this, I don't feel women should be in the military at all.

Henrin, I am glad people didn't think as you do as WWII began. To think that wars are fought only for "the benefit of the state"? Well, I hope you're right. Because I have a pretty damned good life I wouldn't want to give up any time soon.
 
Edit: Done in response to River Dads post re USS Acadia

10% of the females on this ship (in 1991, towards the beginning of ship integration) were sent home from their ship due to getting pregnant. That is only for pregnancy.

Now, on a 9 or 10 month deployment, how many women are lost simply because they can't handle 9 or 10 months of deployment at sea? How many extra hours do men on board have to work to make up for this? How many men can't handle 9 or 10 months and rape one of the women they serve with? How many women are lost for this reason?

It may have been limited to the Ronald Reagan, but I spent literally hundreds of hours on watch or maintenance duties because the woman that was supposed to be there couldn't handle it. The same is true for many men, but there are so many other problems women introduce that they simply aren't worth it from a strictly military point of view (the view of the brass talking to Congressmen and Senators is slightly different of course). For example, that supply ship, the Acadia....do you think it was designed with integration in mind? Or were the men (specifically <E-6) forced to give up several of their bathrooms/berthing areas...for what? A workforce that has lower physical standards and is going to shrink by a minimum of 10% just because of pregnancy?

The amount of work to do aboard ship does not go down when someone is flown off, nor does it go down when a sizable chunk of the workforce doesn't pull its own weight (or be able to handle their fire fighting equipment without a male chaperone...). It is simply put on the broad shoulders of the men (and, yes, women) who are going to shoulder it and realize that they can't do anything but grin and bear it.

You can blame this on one too many middle-of-the-night fire drills where every man in my division was there, and nobody else.
 
Last edited:
Henrin, I am glad people didn't think as you do as WWII began. To think that wars are fought only for "the benefit of the state"? Well, I hope you're right. Because I have a pretty damned good life I wouldn't want to give up any time soon.

The first reason we have a military is to protect the state, which would make sense considering that almost all wars are fought between governments.
 
The first reason we have a military is to protect the state, which would make sense considering that almost all wars are fought between governments.

As opposed to tribes?
 
a draft is contrary to a free society and encourages military adventurism by leaders who aren't subject to serving in combat themselves. But women should be treated the same as men in arms of involuntary servitude but there nature of the servitude can be modified
 
The New York Times reports:

Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say. . .

The ship, whose 1,250 crew members included 360 women, returned to her home port here on Friday. . . .

Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant.​

Who here is good at doing complex math calculations?

There is no complex math involved here.
 
The first reason we have a military is to protect the state, which would make sense considering that almost all wars are fought between governments.

Who else? The Hatfields and McCoys?
 
I chose "other" because neither men or women should be forced into conscription.
 
As opposed to tribes?

Who else? The Hatfields and McCoys?

The military empowers states to fight each other for power and influence. It is truly rare that a war isn't started and fought because one or more parties involved want power over the others. The people that make up the military ranks are used more often than not to expand the interests of government, not of the people. It's the reason that no one should support the military.
 
Since just about nobody does anyway it seems just a symbolic question.
 
With more and more push to for women to do combat roles in the military should women have to sign up for selective services. For those that don't know Selective Services what male Americans have to sign up for when they turn 18 so they can be drafted if a draft is ever called up again. If you fail to sign up you can face jail time, be fined, and is denied aid for college.

What the what? Seriously?
 
That's true but men still have to sign up for selective service. Women ought to have to do the same thing, even if the chances of being drafted are basically zero.

I remember this like yesterday. It's a bummer they bumped Andy Griffith off the schedule that night. Young men and their families all across America were sitting on the edge of their chairs biting their nails.

I basically wouldn't say "zero," chances, myself as I have actually witnessed with my own eyes. I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were you.

I served honorably. Glad I did. I recommend it for all young men and women. But if Uncles Sam comes knocking on my door telling my grand daughter or niece that, "I WANT YOU!," he's gonna find out he just made a new enemy, Can you imagine having to ship your 18 year old daughter off to a place like Viet Nam? Domestic enemies are something we all should avoid at all costs. They will NOT come for our women. If our women WANT to go, that's a different matter entirely. I kinda like the Amazon unit idea.


 
Yes they should. While that doesn't mean that they may be placed in the same roles that should not remove the obligation.
 
a draft is contrary to a free society and encourages military adventurism by leaders who aren't subject to serving in combat themselves. But women should be treated the same as men in arms of involuntary servitude but there nature of the servitude can be modified

A draft encourages massive protests against military adventurism, and ensures that every mother in the country understands why (and where) we are fighting. As opposed to a volunteer, "professional" force that is called upon constantly to enforce our country's will around the world.

Your post makes it sound like this country stopped getting as involved around the world once conscription was done away with, though that is debatable to say the least. The only difference is now instead of everyone's son or daughter potentially having to go get shot at for no good reason, the vast majority can put a yellow ribbon on the bumper and promptly forget there is a war on.
 
I basically wouldn't say "zero," chances, myself as I have actually witnessed with my own eyes. I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were you.

Personally, I'm not at all worried because I'm beyond the Selective Service limits. There's no need for the military to draft these days, they offer way too many benefits for joining up and there are always tons of volunteers.
 
Do you mean that nobody signs up for Selective Service?
I did. And I know one other person already posted that they have.

So it can't be "no one".

Perhaps...few?
 
Back
Top Bottom