Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I have a 21 year old daughter, and a 19 year old son. Just last year, my son had to sign up in the SSS (Selective Service system), as a male. That started the conversation in my family about why my daughter didn't have to do so. Well - because SCOTUS ruled back in the early 1980s that a female was not required to do so, because Congress established "due process" by deliberating the act of Conscription when it debated it on the floor of each House.
This, too, is full of massive irony. In today's world, we're told that women are equal. OK - why are they not eligible for Conscription then? We let women serve voluntarily, but not mandate them to sign up? What kind of moronic garbage is that? If we're so "enlightened" as a society, why delineate the mandate at the chromosome level?
.
.
.
I see this no different than the hypocrisy of age discrimination in some topics. Yes - I would support my daughter having to register for conscription. I've taught her that she is every bit a person as any other human, but with those rights and privileges also comes responsibility and accountability. She is no more or less a human person than my son, and why should have to take a risk that she does not have to take, simply because of gender? I am for conscription; I have no issues with the registry itself. Only the gender discrimination I find fault with. And it's not the SSS at fault here; it's we as a Nation not demanding equality in every circumstance.
At some age, you shall have your "rights" acknowledged as an adult. My opinion is that whatever that age is (18, 19, 20, 21), it should be fully equal across the board for all rights.
At some point in your life, you choose to retain or attain a gender. My opinion is that whatever your choice is, you should still have to register for Conscription.
I get angry at all the talk of equal this and equal that, but we still tolerate serious age and gender discrimination at many deep, fundamental levels.
If we are so forward-thinking and enlightened as a society then why are these practices still in place?
Even though it's 2019, men and women are still very different from each other in many respects. Forcing women to register to possibly fight to the death on the battle fields isn't something most women are "wired" for like men are - it's been like that since the caveman days. Innate brain wiring is hard to re-wire. Not saying women couldn't do it, I think we all know that an army made of all or mostly men is stronger and more effective. Sure women can do other jobs in the military other than all out front line battling, and that's good. Some might like to fight to the death (hence an allowed voluntary role for that), but IMO most wouldn't when it really came down to it.
And the same can be said to a certain extent about how 18-21 year olds think and act vs people 21+ year olds. Many studies have shown (as mentioned by others in this thread) that brain development and thinking isn't quite fully developed in the 18-21 year old range. I grew up in the mid west, and at the time the drinking age was 18. Some of my friends and I were 18 years old half way through our senior year in high school. We could go out drinking legally, and did ... saw some of our teachers at the bars. Also did stupid things like drive after drinking, not even thinking about any possible consequences. At 18 most people just don't have as much forward thinking ability as someone 21+. Our type of behaviors was probably one of the main factors why the drinking age of every state went to 21 way back years ago. When negative results of people's actions becomes a problem then laws start popping up to help control the problems - that's just how laws made by man work.
Not everyone in the military has to die, or even fight in combat.
Sure, they are TRAINED to do so, but that does not mean they must be placed in positions to do so.
Even when Conscription was in place, the men were first assessed for fitness, then trained in basic training. But they they get additional assessments for specific duties. Many never saw combat.
There were Conscripted men who had medical experience; they became doctors and/or medics.
There were Conscripted men who had mechanical experience; they became mechanics on all manner of equipment.
There were Conscripted men who had skilled-trades experience; they became electricians, plumbers/pipe-fitters, welders, etc.
There were Conscripted men who had low physical abilities; they became clerical persons, equipment operators, supply chain personnel, language translators, etc.
Get the point?
I agree that ALL persons whom would be conscripted would get basic training, and many are able to head to the front lines (men and women alike). But forcing someone into service does NOT mean they automatically head right to the front lines; there are many other venues they could serve in, should they not be a good fit for battle. A Conscripted woman could serve well operating a drone just as well as a man. Conscripted women could become any manner of support personnel; operating cranes, loading ships, maintaining aircraft, etc. And some Conscripted women could actually fight, and fight well! But let's not just leave them at home on the door step as if they cannot serve. I am pro-SSS; I believe that every able-bodied person should have to register, and should Conscription become necessary, then those persons should be used according to their abilities. I am anti-hypocrisy; it's one of my deepest pet-peeves. If my son should have to answer the call, then why not my daughter? If my daughter does not have to answer the call, then why should my son?
My opinion is that registration with SSS should be for ALL able-bodied persons.
And as for the age topic, which is reasonably germane to the overall concept of equality here, I only ask that we be consistent in how we treat young adults. Again - if you're old enough to be allowed to decide about aborting a fetus, then you should be able to be trusted to buy a firearm. If you are old enough to make up your mind in the voting booth, then you're old enough to drink and smoke. Or, if you believe they should not have some of those choices, then why any of them? Are not ALL of those choices major life decisions? Are they not all decisions that have serious consequences? Are they not choices that present significant forks in our roads of life? In my mind, it should be all or none; there is NO LOGICAL, RATIONAL explanation as to the disparity of rights with regard to age. Pick one age (I don't care which it is) and stick with it across the board.
My opinion is that whatever age society deems appropriate, that age should be the delineation for ALL rights.