One of the justifications for obliging men to go to war is the survival of the nation, but women are generally not included in this obligation, either because they are considered physically less fit for combat, or because, in reproductive terms, they are deemed more “valuable” for repopulating the country.

Having extremely low birth rates also threatens the survival of a nation, albeit more slowly. For example, South Korea has had one of the lowest birth rates in the world for years, and it is projected that by 2072 it will have half of its current population.

Yet, both in cases of extremely low birth rates and in post-war situations, women have no reproductive obligations to the state, even though the very assumption that they are more valuable for repopulation is what keeps them from going to war. So the question arises: if men are obligated to sacrifice themselves for the nation in times of war, shouldn’t women also have reproductive obligations in these situations?

And this refers to fertile women, but infertile women—for example, in times of war—should be equally obligated to participate, just as men are. Moreover, physical condition cannot be an excuse, when in conflicts like in Ukraine, we are seeing civilian men over 50 being forced to go to the front lines.