Women serving in combat

First of all I would like to say I would not call myself a proponent of feminism, in fact I am conservative, and that you don't need to be in order to advocate my case. Cons argumentsPerformance of combat duties/physical strengthThis point holds no water. I will simply refute this by saying that the average physical strength of a woman =/= the average physical strength of a woman in military. It is true that woman on average are less strong then men, but those serving in the military are REQUIRED and trained to be able to carry out the necessary functions of military service. Probably every person in the service has the required physical strength necessary, because the military have to make sure they do. Therefore, females will have to have the required physical strength in order to serve[1][2] and thus I safely conclude my opponents contention has been negated. Another interesting fact to point out is that women are superior to men in some mental aspects. They are better able to handle anger. [7] I dare say it is useful to have combatants who are able to control this overwhelming mental factor. Let's take a look at some other aspects of women's superiority.[8] Women have some leadership qualities men don't have. Women are relationship builders. Women have a well developed ability to read the emotions of people. Women aren't afraid to speak their mind. Women Encourage organization, and other peoples opinions. [8] All this makes it obvious women bring a good variety to the military. Conclusion Everyone has to pass a physical test to join the military. Thus the women who pass the test are proven to have the necessary physical strengths for battle. Female combatants are physically capable. Women also possess some mental attributes men do not. PregnancyFirst of all I would like to point out, cons source is outdated. It is from February 1993. Military amongst most other things is always improving. It was a problem back then, but does that mean it is a problem now? I will also contend that there are ways for the government to prevent this, and that even if certain methods haven't been put into place, more will until this is a minor problem. However, I do think it is a minor problem now. I think my opponents argument can be dismissed by the fact that now days if a women serving in the military get's pregnant she may face a court marshal. [3] This is a huge deterrent for woman getting pregnant in the military. Getting a court martial can ruin a persons life and even your families life! It's shameful and may cause that person to not be able to get a job in the future. I would also point out it would be very hard to conceal pregnancy and that tests are done to see if you're pregnant. [4]Facing a court martial you may risk the following; [5]1. Jail time2. lost military bonus's - In fact you will have to pay back previous bonuses! This may cost from $10,000 to $80,000 in reenlistment and specialty bonuses.3. Lost medical insurance4. Federal Felony Conviction - You will be limited to low level, low paying jobs. This is a very major and may cost you $20,000 to $100,000 a year in lost potential income. Or $3.5 million in lost potential income over your lifetime.5. Second class citizen - Those convicted of court martial will not be allowed to possess a firearm, vote, hold Government jobs, and in some cases cannot be involved in a labor Union, participate in Federal contracts or programs, immigration and passport limitations and other costs.6. May be labelled as a sex offender! Why would anyone in their right mind want to risk all of these just for getting pregnant?? I safely conclude my opponents contention of woman getting pregnant has been dismantled. Conclusion The possibility of getting a court martial is a HUGE deterrent to getting pregnant because of the MAJOR consequences that follow. Women will not take this huge risk just to get pregnant and therefore pregnancy is no longer a big issue. Female POW'sI will answer this contention by saying, women know and are warned of what they will be risking. Joining the military is a very big decision and they will take it seriously. If a woman wants to take these risks, let them. Every person takes bigger risks than this with their life, when joining the military. Risk is necessary. It's their life, we can't prevent them from doing things just because it's our opinion that it's not in their best interests. Women, as well as men, are educated enough of the risks they will undertake before joining the military. They choose to take these risks. Not anyone else. Conclusion Women are free to take these risks if they want. It's their choice not ours. Now on to my own arguments-My argument is simple. It's a woman's right to serve in the military. Men get to serve. It would be sexist to not let women. Now, it would be poor conduct to call my opponent sexist. I do not hold that view at all. But I think women not being allowed to serve in combat roles is at the least motivated by sexism. Furthermore I think it would advance America as a free nation to allow women to have this right.[6] And not allowing them would bring America backwards. -If a female has the requirements necessary to serve in the military I see no reason why we should not let them. -Military provides jobs. Oftentimes men join the military because they can't find any other job. What about woman? Why take away the woman's possibility of getting a military job when she can't get a job anywhere else? -As shown in my response to my opponents first contention, women have a number of mental capabilities men do not. This certainly makes them useful on the battlefield. Short summary -Female combatants have the necessary physical attributes to serve in the military, because if they did not they would be disallowed to serve. -Women have certain mental capabilities men do not, making them useful in the battlefield for morale and other things. (The above, as well as other points mentioned, refute my opponents first contention) -My opponents source for pregnancy is far outdated and holds nothing to what the situation currently is. -Women now suffer the possibility of a court martial if they get pregnant. Besides being shameful, a court martial can have huge consequences; such as financial, losing citizen rights, job possibilities and more. (The above, as well as other points mentioned, refute my opponents second contention) -It is a woman's decision whether she wants to risk the possible abuses of being a female prisoner of war. -Every person wanting to serve is well informed of what risks he or she is taking. It is not as if they are going unprepared. -We cannot prevent females from serving just because it is our opinion that it is not in their best interests. (The above, as well as other points mentioned, refute my opponents third and last contention) -If a woman meets the required standards it is her right to join the military, and there is no reason why it should not be her right. -Letting women serve advances America as a free nation, and not letting them have this right moves us backwards. With all of the above I conclude my opponents case has been thoroughly dismantled, leaving little reason why we should not let women serve. I thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to tackling him in the next round. Sources [1] http://www.todaysmilitary.com... [2] http://www.military.com... [3] http://archive.truthout.org... [4] http://pageantgirl31413.hubpages.com... [5] http://www.ucmjdefense.com... [6] http://www.un.org... [7] http://abcnews.go.com... [8] http://www.hrmreport.com...