Should military conscription be banned?

Military conscription interferes with important aspects of a person's life

Question: Should military conscription be banned?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, military conscription should be banned.
Argument‹4 of 6›: Military conscription interferes with important aspects of a person's life

Education, work, and personal ambitions are often compromised by mandatory military service

The argument

As polls have determined, only 15% of individuals have indicated a willingness in joining the military if a draft was implemented, thus leaving a large majority who simply do not want to be involved. In adopting a mandatory national service, an individual's life would be completely disrupted for an event they have no desire to participate in. This could entail life events similar to attaining a college degree, starting a family, taking care of a business, or even one as simple as wanting to travel the world. Regardless, these yearnings would be cast aside in favor of exercising a mandatory national military service— even though reports claim that volunteer-based system tends to do quite in obtaining soldiers.

Premises

[P1]Only about 15% of people say they would be willing to serve if drafted, leaving a large majority who do not want to participate. [P2] Mandatory service would disrupt the major life plans of these unwilling people (education, family, business, travel), and reports suggest volunteer systems obtain soldiers effectively anyway. [C] Therefore, because conscription interferes with important aspects of a person's life against their will, military conscription should be banned.

Counter-arguments

Simply put, military service is overlooked and underappreciated by citizens. These individuals do not realize how significant of a role a nation's military plays in their own lives. If they were to truly understand such a sentiment, national security would in turn be everyone's first priority— But this is not the case. The military is not infringing on our own lives, instead, it has and always will be a part of our lives in regards to safety and security. Without it how would we even continue individual milestones in our lives? Moreover, a failure to acknowledge and agree to this idea is inherently selfish. In other words, although military service does benefit the individual in a variety of ways, participating is a truly selfless sacrifice. You are protecting your country, and those who are too weak to defend themselves. Sure, military conscription may postpone important dates, but that is no justification for the refusal to serve and as a result, allow countless innocent lives to be lost.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Unwillingness to serve is the reason conscription exists rather than an objection to it; on this reasoning no compulsory obligation, including taxation or jury service, could be justified. The 15% figure is also given with no source, no wording and no population. [Rejecting P2] Disruption is a cost to be weighed, and the premise never says against what. Its second half also undercuts its own conclusion: if volunteer recruitment works, conscription is not used and the disruption described does not arise — which is a case for keeping conscription in reserve rather than for the outright ban the position asserts.