Women in Military Combat

The premise of this argument is that putting women into military combat would threaten the existence of society because women, who would be on the front lines and would be in their childbearing years, would be killed in combat. Therefore, the argument concludes, allowing women to participate in military combat is bad public policy.

A fallacy of relevance embedded in this argument is that it makes an indirect appeal to the reader's desire for security, love, and other social goods in order to link the very fate of society to a military policy. While it is reasonable to suppose that everybody wants access to social goods, that does not prove that putting women into military combat is a bad policy. This argument, therefore, evades directly addressing the issue by way of logic and reason, instead making an emotional and psychological appeal to persuasion.

Out of the fallacy of relevance comes a host of inappropriate presumptions. A minor one is that the military needs young people only, even though the command structure contains persons of some maturity and even though officers are the ones charged with strategic and tactical decisions. Thus it is simply incorrect to characterize all military combatants as "youn

. . .
to be an advocate of putting women in combat to see that if they were trained and armed by the military, this business of being the spoils of war might just change. Teaching them how to fight and putting weapons in their hands would even up the odds a little. It is as if the arguer's latent purpose is to keep the tradition of rape and pillage alive. Argument #2. The problem that I have with the prochoice supporters' argument is that they make "choice" the ultimate issue. Let's face facts. No one has absolute freedom of choice sanctioned by the law. One can choose to rob a bank, but it's not lawful. Others can choose to kill their one-year-old child, but it is not legal. Why then should a woman have the legal right to take the life of her unborn child? One premise of this argument is that choice has nothing to do with the legal right to reproductive choice. A second premise is that no one has an absolute right to unrestricted choice. Accordingly, the argument concludes, women should not be entitled to reproductive choice. Relevance fallacy dominates this argument. The argument sets up choice as a straw man by attacking choice for being considered the ultimate issue as a matter of choice. Then the argument supports its stance aga
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
, reproductive choice, Kristof ND, Retrieved April, women military, military combat, putting women, women military combat, life unborn child, ultimate issue, kill children, women childbearing, life unborn, unborn child, choice ultimate issue, choice taking life, taking life unborn, childbearing age,
Approximate Word count = 1397
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)