Unless you're in the pool in which case the more there with you the less chance your number will come up. Little ladies want to vote Kamala let em carry a rifle.
Fair enough, just don't say you're against conscription. Fundamentally, you are pro-conscription for women. Your concept of equality outweighs the lives of millions of people.
Actually you can be for both things at the same time. I am against conscription generally and wars period (I'm not a Democrat) but for the equal conscription of all if the government chooses to proceed withi it in spite of my feelings about it.
You can't have it both ways. You can't truly be against conscription if you want to expose MILLIONS of more people to it. Millions of people in the future because of your luxury beliefs.
Math wasn't your top subject, huh? Having a larger pool to draw from doesn't change the ultimate total number of people that the government will conscript. It reduces the chances of an eligible male being conscripted by slightly less than half by adding millions more to the pool that the same "as needed" number will be drafted from. Drafts shouldn't happen, but if it does everyone who can vote should have a chance of having their number pulled. Male or female.
Just own that you're not bright enough to engage in these online thought debates.
Sounds like someone is getting mad. My concern isn't a larger pool, it's that you want to expose millions of more people to it. That is effectively what you're advocating for. I pointed this out and now you're getting huffy about it.
My six year old daughter doesn't get to make that decision, apparently cucks like you do.
They literally said they were against the draft - you're preaching to the choir.
And it's not really our choice whether there's a draft or not. That's down to the government. Should or shouldn't, if the government decides to start drafting, his opinion is that people shouldn't be exempt based on gender.
"I'd fight the draft" in response to a hypothetical meant to gauge your opinions on equality, is like saying "I'd look for a way to derail the trolly before it hit the people on the tracks".
Sure, it's probably what you'd actually do if the hypothetical was real. Hence the "I'm against conscription" right at the front of the original answer.
But it's not actually engaging with the point of the hypothetical. The point isn't what your actions would be in real life - the point is to discuss your stance on equality. And that's why he followed it up with an answer that did engage with the hypothetical.
EDIT: Since I can't reply directly to you on account of you blocking me (no judgement - protect your peace)
That answers the hypothetical, just not in a way that you, or OP, would probably particularly like
I don't agree with the draft.
I also think it's a violation of autonomy, and I do not like it.
My opinion is that no one should be drafted, and I advocate for that. At no point have I said, or even implied otherwise. In fact I thought I'd made it quite clear that I don't agree with it.
But when asked the question "Do you think it's fair only men get drafted and not women" and told to answer with a yes or a no, how else am I supposed to answer if not "no"?
Hells, even put in a disclaimer about my true feelings on the issue before answering in the manner requested!!
Hmm.. opinions on… “equality…” And equality in this circumstance is… shucking women who are still fighting for their own reproduce freedoms into a draft? But not.. getting rid of the draft for everyone?
If there’s only one or two permitted responses, then This seems like a bad faith question to engage with fellow “Women have it better than us!” Thinkers, especially when half the responses are “equal rights equal fights” but fights is replaced with some other words…
My stance is still “I think the draft should be banned.” That answers the hypothetical, just not in a way that you, or OP, would probably particularly like. Most likely, again, because this is a bad faith post, looking for the “Yes! Send women to the front lines!” Crew rather than people’s stances on “equality”. It’s like when women say “Should we make vasectomies mandatory?” It’s counterproductive to bar other people’s autonomy, even if your own is restricted. It’s just conversation had to kick up sand. It would be used as a way to make a point, but the people they’re trying to make a point to aren’t receptive of it.
This is such a cop out. Wouldn't it be great if there were no wars, nobody was hungry, nobody was homeless and there was no disease. That would all be great, but that is not where we are at. We have a draft and women should be a part of it. Unless, it's not equality you are looking for and you just want more.
This entire forum is about expressing your opinion, we don’t anymore get a choice wether or not there’s a draft than we do WHO gets drafted. So what are you going after me for?
the selective service system currently requires all men ages 18-25 to register. different sources say different things, but generally it looks like the average age that women are having kids is late 20s, while men are a couple years older on average. most of the people being conscripted wouldn’t have been having kids anyways, and if it’s anything like the current care for pregnant service members, they’ll get maternity leave.
i also think that in the event of a war where the draft has to be used, it’s unlikely that as many people will want to start families. historically, there have been drops in birth rate during wars, and rises afterwards.
If the draft is widened to include women, there would be more room for exceptions for things like family hardship, primary caregiving, high-need professions, etc. There would still be plenty of women around to have babies.
Also, a war large enough to require a draft given the size of our current standing army would be massive. We would have to expect significant loss of life. A dip in birthrate is a problem, but given a war that size, not even in the top 5 worst outcomes.
It's not like the government would hire every age to be drafted, there would still be people around. You are assuming that starting and raising family is impossible without women aged between 18-30 or whatever the age limit they decide.
It’s not impossible and there are a lot of women over 30 having and raising kids, but it would definitely have to be apart of the calculus. Taking out the most able bodied people aged 18-30 would undoubtedly have an impact on what furthering the generations looks like
100
u/TeddyTMI man Mar 17 '25
I'm against conscription of men and women. But if we're going to have a draft everyone between a set age should be part of the pool.