Nobody should.

Women do some things better than men, and women do some things worse than men... in general.
But people shouldn't be valued, in general, they should be valued for their individual abilities.
I would make a lousy soldier, in general, but I might contribute greatly in other ways, if I did so voluntarily.
Let anyone serve who is qualified to perform the job, and who has the ability to understand what they are volunteering to do.
(Yes, they should also be provided the truthful data to make the decision.)
No draft of anyone. No one sent to die under threat.

No draft of any one, not even for "national service" involuntary servitude is slavery.

If you don't pay attention to this and have a silly draft registration then all sexes should sign up for it -- however many sexes you recognize. If you do have a draft assign duties as appropriate.

Nobody should have to sign up for the draft.

But if men must, then women must.

Drafting only men is sexism and violates equal protection of the law.

But again, the draft itself is a form of slavery. It is grossly unjust to threaten someone with prison or death to send them where they run a high risk of being killed. It's gross violation of the rights to life and liberty.

I am offended by this article. It gives the impression that men are natural killers who want to out and kill each other while women are naturally sweet and kind.

While teenage boys who are learning to deal with conflicts often do go to violence as an answer, and teenage girls often go to backstabbing and rumor mongering both revert to force if not taught to be mindfully better than the method of force in there thinking.

Now those are generalizations and there will be those outside of them. In the end non of it should matter because there should be no draft ever. If the cause is just and people see it as valuable you will have enough who will fight by there own agency. If not you wont get people to join up. That is how it should work and gender does not matter, so long as the requirements for a job are met.

If they're going to force people into war, they should look at potential conscripts' traits, not the traits of the group they belong to.

if women are going to serve in combat roles, then, yes they should be included in the draft.... they want to lower the standards to allow women to qualify for special forces so why not draft em.... we are all equal in the eyes of government.... haha

No draft in the Gulch. Not for anyone. Ever!

"Thank you for your service." Not much more to go to "Thank you for your indentured servitude." And from there, "Thank you for your slavery." As a military retiree, I still react oddly to "Thanks for your service".

The military would take a person 5'2" and 120 pounds and make that person into a tunnel rat, and in Vietnam, that is exactly what happened.

But "Abaco" got it right, nobody should. Or, nobody must.

I am against a military draft per se, as it violates
individual rights, whether for men, women, or both.
Also, women, not being as physically strong as men, would not do as well in combat. And if you
have more women going in to be put into other
capacities, thus freeing up more men for com-
bat, the men will naturally resent it, as putting
less value on their lives than on the lives of
women.

Once the fight arrives at our shores...the draft would become redundant, anyway.

Those who refuse to wield the sword can still die upon one (or something like that).

Even voluntary military service can be a form of indentured servitude. After the end of the Vietnam conflict, when I had served 8 years as an Air Force officer, I decided I would leave the service, and had several job offers. Even though many around me were losing their positions from the ongoing reduction in force, I was informed that because I was in a critical job classification, I could not leave the service. The justification at the time was that as a Reserve officer, I served "at the pleasure of the President," and without a release from the White House I was obligated to stay.

The strange adventure continued, as I was thwarted at every attempt to attend professional officer schools, which should have spelled the end of my career, since without those I shouldn't have been promotable to Major. As I prepared to end my service at 12 years, I was suddenly given a regular commission and promoted to Major, again because I was a "critical resource." I was obligated to stay to 20, but departed as a Lt Col before they could find another reason to keep me.

There's a lesson in that story about volunteering, and how it can put your fate in the hands of bureaucrats.

Of course the draft is involuntary servitude and violates the rights of all who fall under it throughout all of history regardless of gender. Note that not a single Republican (the supposed champions of limited government) called for an end to the shameful draft during the recent debate where this question was raised. Please don't waste your vote supporting any of those would be slave masters.

It should be a moot point, since military conscription is just a fancy word for slavery. The military should be voluntary and only voluntary, allowing persons of either gender, providing they meet mental and physical qualifications to enter as they would any other job.

Retired U.S. military, Army Secretary John McHugh once said. "If your objective is true and pure equality then you have to look at all aspects."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/20...

Now, should their be a draft? I say "no" because we have the volunteer military but if there is a draft, and women are equal, "hell yes they should be in the draft!" Body-size aside, men can stay in the U.S. and conduct themselves just as women can. Awebb's comparison of women to small men is spot-on because young, small, and wimpy men with families were drafted just the same as larger, stronger, and single males.

they need more people in uniform and if the male population is declining what is left?

We have decided women can serve in combat roles. Therefore they should be subject to exactly the same requirements as men, including registering for the draft. Having said that I am against the idea of mandated service as it is currently presented. If we want to make the argument that part of the "cost" of being a member of our society is federal service, I would be open to looking at that. In that case everyone would be required to serve. The current system is obviously rigged.

The "Draft" serves only to negate our Right to Life, and more.

IDK if women in combat is a good idea.
I find women to be brutal.

Selective service registration is a form of oppression by the government. When approximately half the population is being oppressed, you don't solve it by oppressing the other half. You abolish the oppression all together.

Those crying that without the pool of possible draftees being readily available, must have been under a rock when 9/11 happened. Within days after the attack there were huge numbers of volenteers signing up for military service and I have no doubt if needed there would be similar people coming forward in the future if need be. Also, because of the advancements that have been made to our military infrastructure, I would also daresay that the numbers needed would be much less in the future due to the our capabilities (there will always be a need for infantry for on the ground needs, but fewer would be needed to be put into harms way when we have precision armaments to make better surgical strikes).

Our culture has, until recently, valued women and children and I think that tradition is a valid and heroic one, But...no one should be forced nor required to serve in any "Just cause" or to serve in readiness for the protection of our country against barbarians and the mentally ill kakistocracies in the world.
It should always be a choice.

Hell no, they should not be made to register for conscription!!

That doesn't mean that they should be kept from serving voluntarily in combat roles, should they be qualified to do so, BUT....

Just because some citizens are getting treated as slaves, doesn't justify that even more should be enslaved. The concept of equality of treatment or fairness doesn't not apply to criminal violation of individual rights.

Anyone who can avoid being involved in draft registration by any means whatsoever, including lying or running away (just as similar actions are justified in the face of a mugger on the streets) is justified in doing so, and I happy for them to have done so.

Something just dawned on me. Can you imagine if a candidate answered like I did? If a candidate said we should avoid a draft the people would lose their minds. The Vietnam veterans would flip out. The leftists would flip out. The neocons would flip out. Fox News would flip out. MSNBC would flip out. My dad would flip out. Most of my neighbors would flip out.

LOL

Then, there are these people who think that every kid should be forced to serve a term "like in Isreal". Meanwhile, my neighbor's daughter couldn't wait to get out of the Army because she was continually sexually harassed in there. Yeah...molest my daughter Uncle Sam... The addled masses have this dreamy image of America - that everybody's pure and you can just hand your kids over to the government.

I thought Bush, Rubio and Christie made a huge mistake answering the question. They should have said we don't have a draft and we won't have a draft if I am President. By answering the question they are now on record talking about what they would do if there was a draft.
I did not serve in the military but I would have to think I would feel more protective of a female soldier than a male soldier. It would probably cause me to make mistakes and take chances I otherwise probably wouldn't take. Not trying to be insulting it's just the way I think.

No, but then neither should men. The draft violates the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.