This was literally an argument used by some women who opposed women's suffrage - worries that if they received the full benefits of citizenship they'd be expected to pay the full costs thereof.
You're starting from the false premise that I do not believe women should be conscripted. In my country (and many European countries) much of the female population was conscripted during the second world war, mostly for war industry and agriculture. In Norway and Sweden, everyone is registered for national service regardless of sex. In Switzerland, women can choose not to do national service, but if they do they have to pay an additional tax to support those who do. The idea of women doing national service really isn't weird in most countries that still use it. The reason countries like the US don't institute an equal draft register is because firstly, conservatives still hate the idea of women in the military, secondly, because the US has not been existentially threatened by a war for hundreds of year, and thirdly because the idea of the US drafting its population as conscripts is an absolute joke.
Unless aliens invade tomorrow, most countries don't need or use conscripts, and of all countries on Earth the US has the least need for conscripts. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and so forth have conscription because they are historically neutral countries with small populations. Conscription is a part of their national defence strategy, and that strategy has thus inevitably had to define the role of women in order to remain effective. Until the xeno menace arrives, men in the US are simply never going to be drafted.
If you're that concerned about a situation that's never going to happen, write to your representative about it. The only people holding you back are conservatives.
Apparently they needed not be worried, as even once women were permitted in all roles and positions in the military without exception the very idea would remain a thing that's not going to happen, that Congress refuses to pass and the courts refuse to hear (the refusal of SCOTUS to hear NCFM v Selective Service was penned by Sotomayor and basically admits that there's probably illegal discrimination going on there but SCOTUS doesn't want to get between Congress and the military, so...).
Why are you complaining to me?
I'm not opposing you on this, I just struggle to care about something which is never going to matter. But if it matters to you, the people blocking you are your own military and political establishment. Most of those people are men. Go bond with them over man stuff, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
Are you literally arguing that barring or restricting medical providers from doing one specific type of procedure or providing drugs for one specific purpose (because let's be honest, no one is willing to apply that generally) abrogates ownership over your own body, but the government having the express ability to literally at their choice and regardless of your will send you off to function as an agent of the state and likely be murdered (only prevented because they don't actually need to at the moment and calling for it is unpopular) is totally unrelated to ownership of your own body?
Yes.
When a state conscripts its population, it is not because those in power want those people to die. It's not a way of punishing people by making them go and risk their lives in a war. Those people are not there because the state owns them and can dispose of their lives as it sees fit, if anything in principle it is the reverse. They are there because they have a stake in the survival of the nation, and because they are deemed to be physically capable of being there. The plan is not to get them all killed, the plan (as questionable as it may be in practice) is to win the war so that as many of them as possible get to go home.
If you want an example of a violation of bodily autonomy in a military context. During the Vietnam war era soldiers were deliberately exposed to various drugs and chemical agents as part of military experiments without their consent and without knowing what they were being exposed to. These included chemical weapons, hallucinogens and experimental drugs. As a result, some of them suffered long term illness or debilitation due to side effects
Being used for medical experiments is different from required to fight in a war. Being forced into militarized sexual slavery, as some women were during the second world war, is different from being asked to fight a war. There is a difference between being ordered to do something, even something difficult or dangerous, and having the functioning of your own body appropriated to serve someone else's agenda.
When those medical experiments came to light, it caused a huge scandal. The CIA and the military tried to shred the documents and cover it up to avoid being implicated. There was a lawsuit over it. Even in the US, where the military has immense power and a kind of cultural immunity from criticism, that was a bridge too far.
Actually, let's go down that rabbit hole for a moment - is restricting or barring any drug, medical procedure or surgery abrogating ownership over the bodies of people who might want those and thus wrong?
Is the drug, medical procedure or surgery dangerous or potentially harmful?
Is it effective in treating what it is meant to treat?
Are the reasons for banning it medical in nature, or are they based in religious or ethical beliefs which a person might reasonably not share?
Because yes. If a treatment exists that is safe, effective and readily available, denying someone the choice whether to use it is a violation of their bodily autonomy. The decision about how to treat someone should be between them and their doctor and guided by medical reasoning and priorities, not the political or religious priorities of conservative politicians and judges.
...because sexual consent was seen as part of the social contract of marriage, and therefore it was impossible for someone to rape their spouse
Marriage isn't a social contract. It's just a contract. A social contract is not between two people, it's between an individual and the state that they live in and are part of.
You're also kind of wrong, because the history of the concept of marriage is way more fucked up than you're pretending, but this post is already too long.
