Pro-choice and the draft

Great Debates
1

In this thread lowbrass mentioned

and I think that is a good summation of a general rule that underlies the pro-choice argument.

Put more succintly, “it’s my body and I can do whatever I want with it”

I agree with the basic premise, and, moreover, I think it should apply to both men and women.

The question is, should there be exceptions, e.g. when it is in the interest of society?

For example, in the case of men, when war breaks out, many men would like to stay home, and not go to a hell-hole, watch their friends’ brains get blown up, and possibly die themselves, or come back as invalids.

But, with the draft, society says, you cannot do whatever you want, you do not have “the right to control your own destiny and not be forced to do something against your will”.

You will go to the hell-hole where war is taking place, against your will. You don’t have control of your body. You will have to use it as a weapon to kill people.

I personally think the draft is horrible, and either should be eliminated, or should include women as well, in order to stop it from discriminating against men.

But, if we do agree that at some points in the history of nations, they do need to institute the draft, then we are agreeing that at some points in history, society forces people to do stuff against their will. It is preventing people from exercising 100% control over their bodies.

If you do agree with the above, would you agree that there may be times in history when it is OK for society to force women to carry all their pregnancies to term? e.g. after a disaster decimates the population and a quick re-building of the population is needed.

The times we live in are not such times. But can you envision any times when this may be acceptable?

The reason I am bringing this up is because the “it’s my body and I can do whatever I want with it” argument is always brought up in the context of abortion,
and is considered inviolable.

But if we agree to this right, as unconditional and inviolable, then we should outlaw the draft.

If we agree to the draft, then we are admitting that it is not an inviolable right.

2

Interesting. The last time we had a draft, abortion was illegal in some states. Now there’s no draft, and abortion is legal.
This will require deep thought.

3

No, I wouldn’t be willing to make an exception for a draft. I think military conscription is undemocratic, and equivalent to attempted murder by governments. And I wouldn’t be in favor of society forcing women to keep their pregnancies to “repopulate.” That’s just grotesque. Talk about following one wrong with another!

You won’t find too many people here who support a draft, although I don’t think many people will define it like I do. So there won’t be many people who fit into the pro-choice/pro-draft category.

I’m always tickled by this argument, it’s like a morbid equivalent of “the food here is terrible and the portions are too small.” “The draft is wrong, so they should either get rid of it or make sure women get killed too.” Why not just say you’re against it? :stuck_out_tongue:

4

Wait a sec. Was there not “conscientious objector” status? Were there not deferments for choosing to get a higher education? Were there not deferments for young men with very small children at home, or the last son of a military family? Where there not men who served jail time or left their country and family rather than go to war during the draft?

There were lots of ways to “choose” not to go to war, draft or no draft. They were not consequence free, but neither is abortion.

5

I don’t want to ride this slippery slope, but I’ll point out that if the situation ever got so bad that the state forced women to have babies, everything is likely so fucked up that this abrogation of personal freedom is probably only the latest in a long line of earlier outrages.

6

The draft is only justified if the survival of the nation is at stake. WW II, yes, Vietnam and Iraq, no.

If there was some major decline in fertility so that every baby was essential, then I could see banning abortion. In an overpopulated world, no.

7

Under no circumstances should a woman be forced to carry a fetus to full term against her will.

I am also against the draft. If it should be reinstituted, I think that women should be drafted in equal numbers. They should also be allowed to serve in combat. (There are presently military regulations which discriminate against women in combat.)

We all have to do some things against our will or face the consequences. I don’t think I could have gone to war. It would have been Canada or prison for me if I had been a drafted male. I was raised by a pacifist.

8

In a prosperous, liberal democracy like the US the draft and abortion rights both raise problematic issues of personal freedom and liberty. The first draft was not until the Civil War and there were major riots because of it.

However, I think the legalizing of abortion and the ending of the draft are more coincidence. Legal abortion came about with the liberal social mores of the 60s. And even though ending the draft owed a little to that I think it was mostly due to the unpopularity of the Vietnam War.

But I still think that if Soviet tanks had rolled into western Europe at any time in the 70s or 80s (in other words if WWIII had started) you’d have seen Congress quickly reinstate a draft, no question about it.

I’d also like to remind people that the main reason we don’t have/need a draft today is because of the advent of high technology as an incredible force multiplier.

9

I am as against any draft, military or otherwise, as I am against restrictions on women’s reproductive choices. And this OP combines both in a lovely twofer. No Handmaids, now or ever.

And yes, I would have been against a draft in WWII too. If your civilization isn’t worth volunteering for, it’s not worth keeping, IMO.

10

:rolleyes: No, a draft is unnecessary because there are no serious threats to this country’s existence. And because if there WAS, you’d get plenty of volunteers. Technology has nothing to do with it.

That pretty much sums up my attitude.

11

Especially since there are other, less coercive, ways to get more people, if that’s what you want. An obvious one would be liberalizing immigration laws. That has the additional advantage of replacing at least some of the people killed in the disaster with others of working age, rather than having to wait 20 years for the babies to grow up. A large number of babies isn’t going to be much help in the short-term in recovering from a disaster, after all.

We do something like this to get more people into the armed forces, in fact- there’s a streamlined procedure for getting US citizenship if you serve in the armed forces.

12

Targeting the inner city poor seems to be an effective recruitment strategy. I am surprised the recruiters haven’t gotten down to the Gulf Coast to offer a bed and a meal to all the poor youth waiting for funding to rebuild.

Military Recruiters Are Now Targeting Sixth Graders

There is no need for a draft if plenty of people are poor and desperate. I am against the draft. It has never been a fair system, not in the US.

13

I volunteered for the draft during Korea because I wanted to be in the Navy. Induction was on a lottery basis and I might not have been called but didn’t want to take the chance. Military training was not that bad and I went a lot of places and learned a lot of things I wouldn’t have without being in the Navy.

Today, with the robot machines and airplanes not as many will be needed to fight a war, but those will need to be better educated. Airplanes, tanks, and smaller fighting vehicles will be guided from far behind the lines in the safety of bunkers. The anti-missiles fired in the Persian Gulf wars were fired from the U.S. via satilite. So were many of the drone planes, Hey, it could become just a huge computer game in the future. Don’t worry about it now, if all-out war came to America we would all have to fight, or die.