Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site mit-hermes.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
From: jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick)
Newsgroups: net.college,net.flame
Subject: Re: "Universities need not verify draft status of students . . ."
Message-ID: <2261@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 14:20:27 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-herm.2261
Posted: Wed Dec 19 14:20:27 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 03:58:59 EST
References: <577@pucc-k> <147@panda.UUCP> <247@ssc-vax.UUCP> <371@amdcad.UUCP> <4762@fortune.UUCP> <702@pucc-k> <219@harvard.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.college:544 net.flame:7303

>	In addition, you've got to leave at least some
> 	women behind to "perpetuate the species."  Again, this isn't an
> 	argument directly against the draft, just something to consider
> 	were a draft for women to be instituted.

	If you don't leave as many men alive as women, the only way the women
would get to have babies is via polygamy. Would you advocate this, even if the
number of men were seriously depleted?

	But here's my main point: I say let's have an all-inclusive draft, if
we have any draft, because the legislators who think we need a draft tend to
be the same ones who want women left out of it. In other words, if they had
to restrict women's freedom and risk women's lives along with men's, they'd
think twice and three times before doing it.

	Anyway, if we were ever in a war so serious that conscription were 
needed, we'd all be dead before the "Greetings" telegrams went out. Say
what you like about nuclear war, it's democratic.