Comments on: General Softens Pregnancy Ban

By: kathykattenburg

kathykattenburg — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:50:33 +0000

Abstinence works great! Except when it doesn't.

By: kathykattenburg

kathykattenburg — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:49:51 +0000

Better to put all soliders on some form of birth control. What about that male pill?

Beautiful, Vera.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:21:16 +0000

There is the suspicion that the women are getting pregnant to get out of their deployment. Then the women can refuse to develop a child care plan and be chaptered out of the Army.

Since the Army is supposedly not using an individual replacement program so that every unit that loses a pregnant woman is just short an individaul.

By: Gum Disease - Play Golf No More! - Boston IMC « Gum Disease

Gum Disease - Play Golf No More! - Boston IMC « Gum Disease — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:08:23 +0000

[...] General Softens Pregnancy Ban – The Moderate VoiceLast week I bookmarked a story from MSNBC that reported the Army general of U.S. forces in northern Iraq threatened to court-martial and jail personnel who became pregnant or impregnates another service member, including married couples assigned to [...]

By: solomonic

solomonic — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:09:20 +0000

What a joke the U.S. military has become in its quest to be a politically correct “employer,” rather than a task oriented war machine. The simple fact is that pregnant soldiers can't fight. If a soldier can't fight, unit integrity is degraded. In other words, the task at hand is less likely to be completed, or the remaining members of the unit have to pull the dead weight of the absent pregnant soldier. The comments in here regarding rights to procreate are particularly ridiculous. Soldiers have virtually no rights. They sign those away. That is why they go to jail if they quit. It ain't a job flipping burgers. Soldiers certainly don't have the “right” to take family leave or a time-out to have a baby in the middle of war. If a woman wants to have babies, then do something else. Don't sign up to be a soldier. If they lack the discipline to keep from getting pregnant, or from getting a fellow soldier pregnant, then they are piss poor soldiers that can't follow orders and ought to be punished and/or discharged. Men have been punished for getting venereal diseases in the miltiary since God knows when for the very same reasons. A sick soldier can't fight. The fact that the general is backing off of his order because civilians want to have a kinder gentler military will hurt morale, and ultimately degrade the force. The bare fact is that its unmilitary, and doesn't speak well of the ability to get the job done. I am glad I got out.

By: Gum Disease - Louisville to replace trees lost in storms - Business First « Gum Disease

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:41:14 +0000

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:05:49 +0000

Exactly.

Many of us have experienced these restrictions. Only that during Vietnam the restrictions extended to stateside as well. Getting pregnant could get you charged at the same time you were being kicked out for getting pregnant. I guess the military takes a more liberal view nowadays. Conservatives always adopt liberal philosophies. It just takes them longer to comprehend them.

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:55:09 +0000

Really? How astute.

Then they shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the UCMJ.

With my liberal blessing.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:38:12 +0000

I heard an extremist from NOW on the radio today (mischaracterizing this as an attack on women as well as expressing outrage as though she was mentally ill — naturally, she ignored the role the men were playing and the penalties they have faced) and rolled my eyes. However, much of the ridiculous reaction by losers about this isn't so much related to radical feminism, but more general, something else — it's a toddler-level-or-less entitlement mentality that some are choosing to expose (blatantly).

The issue here is (obvious) discipline, reasonably expected behavior (some of us don't even need to have it explained to us, which no doubt may anger losers, too), and being told “No” to what is wrong.

It's beyond narcissism and being like two-year-olds. Some people really do expect to be truly anarchic.

By: CitizenSoldier_RC

CitizenSoldier_RC — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:13:16 +0000

The tenor of the comments suggests a misunderstanding of the character of military personnel and the nature of life in a combat zone. Soldiers in a war zone are expected to exercise self control, in some cases to the point of making instantaneous life-and-death decisions. There is nothing inevitable about military personnel being sexually active in a war zone, especially given that there are already strict rules against cohabitation of male and female soldiers. As I understand this story, this is not a restriction on military personnel on domestic soil, but in a combat zone where a number of freedoms (i.e., freedom to move outside the walls of a compound, certain freedoms of association, freedom to consume alcohol) are already restricted for purposes of discipline, cultural sensitivity, etc. (BTW – I am speaking from the experience of being a male in my mid-twenties who lived with these restrictions for a year.)

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:43:33 +0000

No one wants me to say anything about Bush-era funding for abstinence-only education, right? /sarcasm, promise, sarcasm

By: VeratheGun

VeratheGun — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:47:07 +0000

Young (and not so young) men and women are going to get it on, especially in a war zone. There's no getting away from it.

Pregancy is the natural side effect of this. Not preferrable, and certainly there are means to stop it, but biology is destiny. I have the kids to prove it (ahem).

Better to put all soliders on some form of birth control. What about that male pill?

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:44:56 +0000

1. Since the Constitution.

2. No.

3. There is no god.

By: rvmike

rvmike — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:33:01 +0000

Since when does procreation come under lawful orders? Is it not a “god” given right? Not to be denied by any government nor institution of?

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:21:15 +0000

Perfectly lawful orders. Perfectly reasonable to give such orders. These young people are not idiots, they know what a condom is and how to use it. Not using it is an irresponsibility. Not using it will get their arse in trouble and rightly so.