Drafting Women is Not Only Immoral, it is Disruptive

Source: Conservative Review | June 8, 2016 | Daniel Horowitz

The state of the U.S. military readiness has been debated a lot recently while the Senate considers the law that specifies the budget for the Department of Defense for each fiscal year, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA.  We’ve discussed several of those important questions and will follow up in subsequent articles on what is missing from the debate over the military and national defense.  For now I want to focus on the most egregious provision: including women in Selective Service, which can lead to a mandatory draft.


Whether women should be sent to the front lines, or drafted, or even be in the military are questions that are properly answered by the people’s representatives in Congress. Obama has spent the past seven years unilaterally placing women in combat, contrary to the recommendations of the Marine commanders, which were born out of a painstaking study they conducted about women in combat. How can Congress sit idly by when Obama turns our military into a petri dish of social engineering more appropriate for a gender studies department in a liberal university?

Aside from the obvious issues of integrating women in combat, as documented by the Marines, and the moral and cultural problems with a mandatory draft of women, Congress must not forget that there will be secondary and tertiary effects for every decision they make. One effect will be how to handle the inevitability of pregnancies. We say inevitability for two reasons. First, it’s already happening.  Servicewomen are getting pregnant and in many cases those are unexpected pregnancies. Second, whether the Left wants to accept this or not is irrelevant, but the obvious point is that co-ed groups of young-adults will find ways to engage each other. It’s a fantasy to assume otherwise.


It’s no secret that pregnancies occur before and during deployments. According to a presidential commission, “pregnancy was a main reason why the non-deployability rate for female troops was three times higher than for men during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf conflict.” However, hard numbers on the rates of pregnancy are hard to come by.  Either way, the end-goal of co-ed social engineering in the military has wasted so much taxpayer money and has hurt mission readiness.

There is one more point to consider here that no one who supports adding them to the draft wants to address: if women are eligible to be drafted, will they intentionally get pregnant to avoid being forced in the military or a deployment? It’s a good question. Men do it to avoid deployments. Men have tried everything from jumping off a roof to paying a hit man to shoot them in the leg to avoid deployment. So, it’s reasonable to assume that a woman who doesn’t want to be drafted, but still doesn’t want to cut off a finger, will get pregnant to avoid the unknown possibilities of war-fighting.

Yesterday, Senator McCain (R-AZ) criticized Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his opposition to the NDAA.  However, McCain fails to understand that destroying the morale and mission readiness of the military through social engineering cannot be ameliorated by a bill authorizing more funding.  Perhaps if McCain’s committee would have utilized the NDAA to push back against Obama’s social engineering instead of exacerbating it, there would be united support behind the defense bill.   

What are Senators McCain, Graham (R-SC), Ernst (R-IA), and others telling us about their views on women’s safety, abortion and the pro-life movement, and military readiness if they are willing to push their agenda on an unwilling country? Forcing women to register for the draft is targeting women and forcing them to make life-altering decisions. The provision to draft women into combat should be removed from the NDAA, or the bill itself should be defeated.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Discussion
  • Consistent #6864

    Victoria #6896

    Consistent, the problem is not pregnancy – the problem is “culture”. Every little boy is told to protect his sister or his female cousin, and protect his mother. That idea of helping/protecting girls is helped by genetics. Here is why:

    If you haven’t noticed, girl look different than men. Men have long sinuous muscles – in other words, stringy muscles which allow for strength. Women do not have these sinuous muscles, they have soft muscle groups and there is a reason for that. Soft muscle groups will give when a baby is born, while sinuous muscle groups won’t expand like that. So, no matter how much a woman exercises, she cannot exchange her soft muscles for stringy muscles so she will never be as strong as a man who has the same amount of physical training. Boys know their sisters and girls in school with them are not as strong as they are, plus there is the cultural idea girls should be protected.

    There is another difference between girls and boys. All girls are knock kneed – yes, they are and when they run they are running knock kneed. It is that baby thing again. Women have hips that are prominent – they extend outward and from there the leg being connected to the hip bone, it is slanted toward the knee. Those hips are important to be able to move to let a baby remove itself from the body. The female has an hour glass figure and men really like that – it is the lower part of the hour glass (the hips) that makes the woman knock kneed.

    This doesn’t mean a woman can’t run fast but it does mean some effort is wasted due to the knock knee feature. In a man and a woman equally trained, the man is going to outrun the woman, he doesn’t have the knock knee problem, he has a straight leg line.

    I know about running because I was a runner. I hold awards for the 50 yard dash and hurdles. In my mid-life, an MRI was done on my right knee. The tech put my leg in a holder, removed my leg and said, “You were a runner, weren’t you?” I said I was and how did she know. She had to reset the leg holder because my leg from my ankle to the knee was longer than a normal person. Now, I am 5′ 5″, not some 6 feet tall amazon.

    What does this all mean when we put women on the battlefield? WE PUT THE MEN’S LIVES IN DANGER. All their lives since they were children, they looked out for the girls. On the battlefield, it will be the same. The men will protect the woman BEFORE they would attack the enemy and they all get killed or some of them get killed because they are protecting instead of attacking. Do not tell me men will let the woman fend for herself – it is not in their nature and you can’t take it out of them – they know that woman is weaker (I have proved that) than they are – it will be automatic protection for the female.

    OK, I feel weak now, so I’m going to take my night pills and go back to bed with my cold.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.