• 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
lets cut through the crap-your position is based on the fact that you have issues with rich people apparently

am I wrong?

No. Though I do have issue with a punk ass bitch suggesting that "brilliant" people don't (or, better yet, shouldn't) do military work and that the stupid "unemployable" remainder should be left for the "grunt work."
 
No. Though I do have issue with a punk ass bitch suggesting that "brilliant" people don't (or, better yet, shouldn't) do military work and that the stupid "unemployable" remainder should be left for the "grunt work."

who is the punk ass bitch you are referring to

and yes if the good of society is all that matters-grunt work should be relegated to those unable to do higher functioning tasks
 
grunt work should be relegated to those unable to do higher functioning tasks

Which it is currently and which it would be under a draft. It is not as though the draft would immediately assign who goes to Afghanistan and who calculates satellite trajectories.

The bigger danger to society, in my opinion, would be one segment of society bleeding and the other buying their way out, and the long term effects such a policy could have. If that were to be the case, it would be better that we just keep a volunteer force that allows those who have the means and no desire to serve to do as they will.

Also, I am sorry I should not have insulted you. It was a knee jerk reaction.
 
Which it is currently and which it would be under a draft. It is not as though the draft would immediately assign who goes to Afghanistan and who calculates satellite trajectories.

The bigger danger to society, in my opinion, would be one segment of society bleeding and the other buying their way out, and the long term effects such a policy could have. If that were to be the case, it would be better that we just keep a volunteer force that allows those who have the means and no desire to serve to do as they will.

Also, I am sorry I should not have insulted you. It was a knee jerk reaction.

fair enough-no harm no foul
 
There are many things which are programmed into us, like the fear of that which is different and the fear of risk. Part of being a person is pushing yourself beyond your programming, otherwise you're nothing better than an animal.

I like this. I may sig it, if you dont mind?
 
With all the new regulations, procedures and enforcement required to implement your new rules and requirements, we'll need another Department just to take care this.

But that's ok, it's worth it, right? We'll spend millions just so crybaby men will feel better because women need to sign up for something that's never gonna happen anyway.

How about we just get rid of selective service registration instead?

When it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

There were a buttload of changes for infrastructure, laws, courts, etc when civil rights for blacks and women were implemented, and the same for handicap accessibility.

It doesnt mean the changes and costs are wrong. Since when is doing the right thing 'convenient?'
 
If we are going to have equality between men and women, we can't let women pick and choose which parts of being equal they want.
 
Wives, daughters, sisters, nieces, aunts, and all other manner of female kin and acquaintances. When we, as a society, sink to the point where we are willing to send our women off as cannon fodder, then I think we need to acknowledge that we've reached the point where there is nothing left of our society that is worth fighting for.

Our men should NEVER be used as cannon fodder either.
 
I'm illustrating a point.

You are asking that a useless government activity be expanded. Have you thought about this?

Just get rid of it all together.

I saw this after my earlier response and I agree.
 
If they have any children, draft them also.

Why should crumb-snatchers get a free ride?

Agreed! And since some people actually think fetuses are persons, let's sign them up too!
 
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?

360 men and 360 women had sex onboard?
 
Damn right women should sign up. My family has a long history of military service and if my eyesight hadn't disqualified me, I would have gone to West Point. I was PISSED that I couldn't get a medical waiver that (according to my congressman who had nominated me) a male would likely have gotten. I wanted to serve, and have had plenty of female friends who have since.

But if my only child - a male - were drafted, I would be suing the government for sex discrimination because my next door neighbor's daughter didn't have to worry about being shipped out.

I think we are far from the need of a draft, but if we did, it should apply to every goddamn adult in this country, not just young men. You don't need to be male, hell you could be in a wheelchair and still pilot a drone.

There should be no exceptions whatsoever. Let the Congresscritters that vote for a draft have to let all their children take the exact same chances with it as everyone else. We would certainly see how necessary they thought it was then.
 
RiverDad said:
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?

360 men and 360 women had sex onboard?

Nothing here?

This is again, your personally-focused data attempting to indicate women are at fault. However a more unbiased perspective sees that both men and women on the ships had sex and that many of them didnt use or improperly used contraception. That all applies to both sexes. However only women can get pregnant from that act....seems pretty obvious but the rest seemed to have to be spelled out, so I wasnt sure....

(Of course, this if we agree with your assumption they were all transferred because of pregnancy, which was not stated.)
 
No one should. Keep war and the military where it belongs - 20th century
 
No one should. Keep war and the military where it belongs - 20th century

As long their is Humans their will be war. Also war was around before the 20th century.
 
As long their is Humans their will be war. Also war was around before the 20th century.

As long as there's military there will be war*
 
As long as there's military there will be war*
Eliminate (as in, kill all members of) all military forces in the world, and you would have another war somewhere within a year.

Humans are naturally combative mfers.
 
Military training should be mandatory for both sexes. Military service should be mandatory for neither. Under any circumstance.
 
I think our society is deeply in error where it tries to treat men and woman as interchangeable, and to deny the essential, fundamental differences between them.

The idea of women being subject to the same obligation as men with regard to military service, and the idea of women serving in combat, is surely one of the most blatant areas in which this error can be seen.

It is the natural role and duty of men to protect women, and to fight violently, where necessary, to do so. This is programmed into us by instinct. Similarly, wherever else the use of violence is called for, this falls under the natural role and duty of men, and not of women. To hold that women should bear the same obligation as men in this regard, is to deny the basic natural differences between men and women.

In a practical sense, if you put men and women in a situation where they are fighting side by side against a common enemy, it is going to be the natural instinct of every real man who is of any value as a man, to protect the women around him at the expense of the cause for which he is supposed to be fighting. Aside form the obvious reduction in effectiveness as a military force, one has to consider the implications of training men and women for this situation, to override their natural instincts, when they are later returned to civilian society. What can be the impact, in a civilian society, of men who have been trained to override their natural instinct to protect women? What of women who have been trained to engage in violence outside of their inherent nature? Neither of these is going to be good for the society into which these former soldiers are returned.


I would very much prefer that women not be in the military at all, and where they are in the military, that they be kept as far as possible from actual combat.

Why is that some conservatives, instead of trying to somewhat slow the rate of progress for the sake of balance and stability, actually seek to try to turn the clock back to the 19th century? It is absurd, and you are absurd, to think in such Victorian terms about men and women's roles, and what is 'natural.'

I don't deny for a second that men and women are different in many way. I don't deny for a second that the presence of different chemicals and hormones causes us to react differently in certain situations.

What I do deny, and vehemently, is the outdated idea of 'weak women' who need a man to protect them. Surely all you need to do is look at the many armies around the world who have and have had women serve in front-line capacities.

If you think that a Red Army soldier, or an IDF soldier, is not threatening to you based on her tits, woe to you if you ever get on her bad side mate.
 
I have mixed feelings about this because the main reason women have not been made to sign up for the draft is a sound one. In theory, I think yes, we should have to because I think that most women would not choose the following route to avoid a draft for most wars that might require one. However, I do believe that at least some women if they got a draft notice would simply get pregnant with anyone they could find just to avoid the draft. Then we would be adding to those women who are single mothers or those children who are given up for adoption. Now, I said yes though because I also don't think, given my military experience that it would be a huge number of women who would do this. However, then again, we are talking about women who would be being forced to fight rather than volunteering. I do think though that this would be a good reason to require that any woman who comes in pregnant after getting drafted would simply have to be doing some job here at home military related. I would say the same for any man or woman that was drafted and had other qualifiers that would have exempted them from service in the past. Hopefully we wouldn't ever need the draft again anyways.

As for both parents being drafted, I doubt that would occur. Even now, not having someone available to voluntarily take custody of your child if you are a single parent or dual military is a valid reason for not going overseas or getting deployed or even allowing one to get out of the service.
 
Why is that some conservatives, instead of trying to somewhat slow the rate of progress for the sake of balance and stability, actually seek to try to turn the clock back to the 19th century? It is absurd, and you are absurd, to think in such Victorian terms about men and women's roles, and what is 'natural.'

There are things that were true about men and women, and how they differ, back in the nineteenth century, or any time before, that remain equally true today, in the twenty-first century, and which will remain true for as long as Mankind exists. I find your remarks about “…try[ing] to turn the clock back to the 19th century” and “Victorian terms about men and women's roles” to be meaningless and absurd.
 
There are things that were true about men and women, and how they differ, back in the nineteenth century, or any time before, that remain equally true today, in the twenty-first century, and which will remain true for as long as Mankind exists. I find your remarks about “…try[ing] to turn the clock back to the 19th century” and “Victorian terms about men and women's roles” to be meaningless and absurd.

It used to be believed back in the 1800's that men were unqualified to give birth. Today we are more sophisticated and know that men and woman are 100% identical all the way around.
 
I checked no, because I believe both men and women should volunteer for the armed services and there should be no conscription for either. And whether it is the fire department or police department or any branch of the military or anything else, I am 100% opposed to lower any useful educational/mental or physical standards for anything so that anybody, including women, can qualify.

Women have always had a critical role to play in society at all levels, including the military. And that will almost certainly continue. But it is a rare woman who will have the same strength as a physically fit guy of even the same height and weight; and will have much less so with a physically fit guy who is bigger and heavier, and that will often mean that women are less well suited for certain kinds of duty than the guys are. This is true even though women can do remarkable things when they have to. They always have.

We have a stronger, gentler, more cohesive, and more productive society when women are allowed to be women and men are allowed to be men without a whole lot of political correctness crap muddying the waters.
 
Back
Top Bottom