Early Christmas! No Draft for Women and Philosopher Warfighter Nominated for SecDef | The Stream

Sgt Jude Eden - I would hope that you do not give me the same response that you have given SGT William Howell. I did read the article/opinion piece. Like I said where "in the law" does it state that is for inducting infantry replacements only? Please state chapter, paragraph, and line - I have already read the relevant Selective Service Acts and I have failed to find it, maybe you can kindly point it out to me. Next, what about the following points in equality:
federal student financial aid
state-funded student financial aid
federal employment
state employment
job training under the Workforce Investment Act
U.S. citizenship for immigrants

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to eliminate discrimination in employment based on race, color, age, SEX, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability.

My question should really be changed around to ask -

Are you for EQUITY or for EQUALITY? They are not the same. If you want equality - women must sign up for the Selective Service Registration.

This is where the rubber meets the road - EQUALITY means that you have to also meet the OBLIGATIONS, whereas EQUITY provides that you CAN bypass SOME of the OBLIGATIONS. DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?

SSG Robert Webster Well said. Much more eloquent than my answer.

Wrong. It's not an equal opportunity because women don't have an equal opportunity to survive in ground combat, and having equal rights under law doesn't mean everyone is required to perform the same tasks in the nation's defense. When drafting women will mean more casualties and less likelihood of winning, we're under no obligation to do what hinders military success in a large scale war.

Then don't join.
I am not sure how bullet knows the difference in male and female, so I am pretty sure it is equal opportunity. Don't cry your BS to me. I have been in combat with women. What you think you know, I actually do know.

1. No because the risks and liabilities to women are disproportionate and it won't help us win. The problems with drafting women are the same as with pouring them in combat units, which I, like the little-known overwhelming majority of AD women, oppose. I've been arguing this for years, you can see my in depth arguments here: http://www.politicalanimalblog.com

2. The draft is for "combat replacements" and yes that's according to the courts in the previous cases such as Rostker v. Goldberg where men sued arguing that drafting only men was unconstitutional and whose ruling upheld men-only draft.

We always need men to fight, we don't need women to as infantry replacements and the ones who want to serve can and do volunteer. Where it adds unnecessary bureaucracy in a crisis - sifting through millions to find the two who can meet infantry standards - and where there's still disproportionate liability for women - averaging 2- 10x men's injuries, being higher value targets to the enemy, greater risks and needs in field conditions, there's ample justification to maintain male-only draft even if the combat units have been opened to women.

Sgt Jude Eden - You still did not answer my question #2. All you did was jump around the issue. Where in the LAW does it state that the draft is for "combat replacements?" I know what the OPINION is, but what does the LAW state?