Should Women be Allowed to Serve in the Military?

Posted by: RyanShakiba

Vote
54 Total Votes
1

Yes, as they can pass the same physical tests as men

35 votes
1 comment
2

Yes, preventing women from serving in combat roles is discriminatory

10 votes
2 comments
3

No, men are more likely to risk the success of a mission in order to protect a women from danger

4 votes
0 comments
4

No, women are not as physically capable as men for combat

4 votes
1 comment
5

No, combat roles place women in a high risk situation for sexual assault

1 vote
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
CosmoJarvis says2017-01-27T03:04:29.7769882Z
Believing that women shouldn't be in combat arms because they risk sexual assault is the equivalent of not letting homosexual men in combat for similar reasons.
John_C_1812 says2017-02-11T16:42:01.5710090Z
NO! None of the above. The word Military describes a process which includes Preserving, defending, and protecting the United States Connotation. A woman is in a Presidential Armed Force, A Congressional Armed Force describe a separations are based on basic Principles. That is both describable and writable. A service to the Preservation, Protection or defense of United States Constitution and is evidence without Military combat and is open to constitutional separation. Any one woman, has not been elected by all woman, to act on their behalf. Giving all men amnesty for the infliction of bodily harm cause in War. A soldier fights to preserve the United States Connotation precedent dictates where democracy ends. Proper Title shall be given only when earned. Period. The second point. The term abortion should be Constitutionally addressed by all woman establishing how it is not a confession to a felony crime. As a conviction of the confessed felony crime is grounds for dishonorable discharge. A Constitutional common defense made on behalf of all Federal (by way of Military/Armed Force) and State licensed Medical Doctors is Gender Specific Amputation. Civil actions where not an act of Constitutional preservation, protection, or defense. They are in fact an aggressive, organized, privately conducted attack.
John_C_1812 says2017-02-12T14:56:34.9737995Z
A state of the Union on woman in combat would under basic principle and precedent answer the democracy with a question of its own. As to why there would be reluctance to allow woman into combat. At the end of any War are woman as a whole willing to insure representation on behalf of all woman who had died? Cosmojarvis no it is not the same at all. Dealing with a limited understanding the average person, might easily pick sexual assault as legal reason behind denial. Pregnancy as it is addressed by legislation now allows the child of any birth to become a citizen of the United States. While offering only a confession to a crime as a way to achieve medical treatment. Not that this makes any child a National threat as it grows up as a United States Citizen. It does provide incentives for the rise of sexual assaults for a War to rage out of control. Here again Congressional, and Presidential Armed Force, are titles assigned by basic principle, while the precedent would hold these names as a position to describe a state in proven service to the United States Constitution. Pending judicial review.
brinzahar says2017-02-28T12:26:20.0153816Z
If someone wants to join the military let them, they are helping the country in ways most people would not, man or woman, either one can be extremely important and do a good job in war.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.