It's all your fault military women, except that it's not. . . .

The women should be punished and so should the guys who knock them up. Getting pregnant makes women a liability in the military, which can be dangerous to everyone involved. How useful is a pregnant woman going to be in a gunfight? How is a small naval vessel going to deal with the potential problems involved with pregnancies if they're out on in the middle of bum-fuck-nowhere?

That's the reason women should have been punished for it, because I know for a fact(having grown up on military bases and knowing A LOT of people in the military) that some women do use pregnancy as a way of getting out of their duties. My dad use to see this a lot when a ship was getting ready for deployment, every time, there'd be a few women who'd get themselves knocked up prior to shipping out.

I don't see anything wrong with the policies that General Cucolo was trying to implement, as it also puts the burden on anyone stupid enough to knock up one of their female colleagues. It wasn't unfair, and Barbara Boxer should shut up about it.

The reason is soldiers are not supposed to engaging in sex in a combat zone. Believe me, the men are punished also... but by the medical team who treats the STDs that are passed around like a hot potato. The medics and doctors have no sympathy and do not handle them with kid gloves (the stories are cringe worthy) So, in reality, they aren't being punished for getting pregnant, they're being punished for sexual misconduct.

However, a man who contracts an STD (the only immediate proof of misconduct) can be treated and sent back to his job. A woman who gets pregnant must be sent home.

(And condoms and other birth control, yes even the pill, are provided at the medical tent 24/7, since we're not stupid )

Everywhere is a potential dangerous situation, and people have a job to do and a role to play. When women get pregnant it impedes their ability to do their job, and unfortunately, unlike an office job, a lot of the jobs in the military are a bit more active.

Say on the USS RearEchelonMotherfucker, there are 3 engineers on board who are responsible for overseeing the engines. One is a woman, and the three rotate on 8 hours watches. Should she be incapacitated, or otherwise hindered in her job(as in she can't climb up and down ladders easily, can't fit in tight spaces, etc.), she puts a real burden on the ship's crew. The two other guys who remain now have to pull 10 or 12 hour shifts, and should one of them get hurt, then the whole ship is put at risk.

THAT is why women should accountable. Because in the military, everyone has to work for the common mission, and when people can't do their jobs, because of a personal choice they make, then they should be responsible for it. If I do something stupid, like get sunburned while I'm off duty, I could get in some serious shit because it might keep me from being able to march around carrying a heavy pack(Happened to a friend of mine who is in the marines).

Pregnancy is no different. If you're going to have sex, you're RESPONSIBLE for the outcome, and while you're in military service, your body is government property. If you're unable to fulfill your contract, because of something YOU chose to do, then you are held accountable. If you're a woman and you want to have a family while you're in the service, you better do it on the military's schedule. If you're going to be deployed, that isn't the time to get knocked up. If you're going to be on shore duty for a few years, then go ahead, because it's not gong to seriously impact the way you work. However if you're a combat medic, and you chose to get knocked before you deploy, you better believe that you're going to be held accountable.

Bird of Prey said:

Well, Dommo, women aren't supposed to be in combat aka a "dangerous situation." Is that what you meant by dangerous situation??

Click to expand...

Don't think for one second the bases over there are safe. My husband lost his eardrums in Iraq on base in a mortar attack. Just because they don't patrol doesn't mean military women aren't in danger over there.

tiny terror said:

...
However, a man who contracts an STD (the only immediate proof of misconduct) can be treated and sent back to his job. A woman who gets pregnant must be sent home.

Click to expand...

She doesn't have the option of having an abortion, even if she pays for it herself?

Dommo said:

...Say on the USS RearEchelonMotherfucker, there are 3 engineers on board who are responsible for overseeing the engines. One is a woman, and the three rotate on 8 hours watches. Should she be incapacitated, or otherwise hindered in her job(as in she can't climb up and down ladders easily, can't fit in tight spaces, etc.), she puts a real burden on the ship's crew. The two other guys who remain now have to pull 10 or 12 hour shifts, and should one of them get hurt, then the whole ship is put at risk.

THAT is why women should accountable. Because in the military, everyone has to work for the common mission, and when people can't do their jobs, because of a personal choice they make, then they should be responsible for it...

Click to expand...

To be fair not all pregnancies are planned and so to assume intention and therefore guilt is...Well, it's Anti-American.

Also pregnancy is a gradual process taking 9 months. She won't go from svelt to rotund overnight.

I understand your comments and they are valid points about duty and breach of contract by not following the rules but realistically, barring unusual medical circumstances the CO's will have 3-6 months to schedule a replacement and unless they are pinned down behind enemy lines for that long, or stationed in Antarctica, I don't think the argument of lost manpower (pun intended) has much merit.

benbradley said:

She doesn't have the option of having an abortion, even if she pays for it herself?

Click to expand...

In a combat zone? The medical staff is a touch busy keeping soldiers alive.

And I assume if her intention was to have an abortion and if she was in a place she could readily get one, the military wouldn't even know she was pregnant so they wouldn't be involved in the first place.

GeorgeK said:

barring unusual medical circumstances the CO's will have 3-6 months to schedule a replacement and unless they are pinned down behind enemy lines for that long, or stationed in Antarctica, I don't think the argument of lost manpower (pun intended) has much merit.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's right. From what the article says: "Pregnant soldiers are immediately redeployed out of combat zones to bases where they can get comprehensive medical care." This also makes sense. Sure you don't go from flat to burstin' overnight, however there is all that pesky prenatal care.

I also think the title of this thread is misleading - it's not all the women's fault. The first paragraph states that both the male and female soldiers were to be punished. What isn't clear from that paragraph is it sounds like the order to punish female soldiers was rescinded, but I'm not sure if they're still punishing the male ones.

benbradley said:

She doesn't have the option of having an abortion, even if she pays for it herself?

Click to expand...

Not at any military hospital or clinic. (Last I heard, but I retired almost ten years ago and I seriously doubt it's changed.)

I'm sorry. With birth control given out like candy I see no reason for a woman in a combat area to get PG.

I think there should be some repercussions for both the man and woman. (I was a air force wife for 26 years.) When going into the service the woman should understand her duty and responsibilities about this. Make up their minds....do they want to be a solider or do they want to be a mommy. You can not be both in a war zone.

CACTUSWENDY said:

I'm sorry. With birth control given out like candy I see no reason for a woman in a combat area to get PG.

I think there should be some repercussions for both the man and woman. (I was a air force wife for 26 years.) When going into the service the woman should understand her duty and responsibilities about this. Make up their minds....do they want to be a solider or do they want to be a mommy. You can not be both in a war zone.

Click to expand...

Agreed here. As a mom I would never put a child in danger by my own actions. Getting pregnant is putting a child in grave danger when in a combat zone.

It's a tricky situation but allowing yourself to get pregnant while in the line of fire is idiotic especially when there's birth control readily available.

(Note, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen despite the woman's/man's best efforts.)

We should all be more like the Elves from Tolkien's Middle Earth: during times of sorrow, troubles, and especially war, the Elves refrained from having children. So nowhere in all of Bilbo's travels and Frodo's travels did we ever see Elf childen. There hadn't been any Elf children born in over a thousand years. And Legolas --at the age of 2,000-- was a young whipper-snappper.









Yes, I'm only joking.




.

Plot Device said:

We should all be more like the Elves from Tolkien's Middle Earth: during times of sorrow, troubles, and especially war, the Elves refrained from having children. So nowhere in all of Bilbo's travels and Frodo's travels did we ever see Elf childen. There hadn't been any Elf children born in over a thousand years. And Legolas --at the age of 2,000-- was a young whipper-snappper.


Yes, I'm only joking.
.

Click to expand...

So let me ask you. And I'm not talking about war torn countries where there is always going to be conflict or at least conflict for a very long time. If you were a soldier in a warzone and you would be there for 18 months at the most. Would you put off having kids or would you think it's a great idea to get knocked up? Or would the intelligent thing to do be wait until you were out of the combat zone to have a baby?

Again, not talking about pregnancies that happened despite the best efforts on both sides.

Bird of Prey said:

Well, unwanted pregnancies happen all the time. Now, we can talk about how a woman should be on birth control or condoms should be used, etc. but there are a lot of mitigating circumstances in which pregnancy preventatives are not used, military not withstanding.

I think the fact that women have to take the consequences because they "wear" the deed, so to speak, is ridiculous. And I think the "father" is certainly not going to share the punishment by virtue of the physical difference. Thus, I think the entire policy is idiotic.

Click to expand...

Well the father doesn't have another living being growing inside them and depending solely on them and their well being to survive, so the physical difference can never and will never be compensated.

We don't give teenagers or poor people any slack for unwanted pregnancies. How many threads have derided the poor for having children they can't afford? I don't see why a soldier should be any different. Choices and consequences.

Bird of Prey said:

I think the fact that women have to take the consequences because they "wear" the deed, so to speak, is ridiculous. And I think the "father" is certainly not going to share the punishment by virtue of the physical difference. Thus, I think the entire policy is idiotic.

Click to expand...

You did read the part of the story (which you quoted) where it said both parties would be disciplined, right? I do have to agree that the title of this thread is misleading folks, based on the responses I've seen thus far suggesting that the men should be punished (when the policy does)

Maybe we should keep the ladies on the front lines, pregnant or not...then we wouldn't have to worry about whether they get sent home.

Bird of Prey said:

I think the fact that women have to take the consequences because they "wear" the deed, so to speak, is ridiculous. And I think the "father" is certainly not going to share the punishment by virtue of the physical difference. Thus, I think the entire policy is idiotic.

Click to expand...

You're reading things into the article and policy that aren't there. Or rather you're neglecting to notice the things that are there. I'm not sure where you're getting this "Only the woman is punished" thing given, well, the article.

Some highlights (emphasis mine):

"disciplined both soldiers who became pregnant and their military sex partners."

"The four women and two male soldiers received letters of reprimand that will not remain in their permanent military files."

"A third male soldier, he said, was also punished for getting a female soldier pregnant."

"Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status -- or contributes to doing that to another"

Click to expand...

I understand the concern with tampering with the reproductive rights of women, and in some cases it's a valid concern. However (I've not been in the military but I have siblings who have served) my understanding of the military is that you don't really have the same rights as regular citizens. You do what they tell you, you operate under an oath and a code and are punished for that if you stray.

It would be one thing if it were an obviously discriminatory policy but the article states, repeatedly, that both parties to the pregnancy are being punished in the same fashion.

I think getting all heated up over the red herring you've manufactured here only dilutes arguments and activism against legitimate discrimination.

The only reason the women were being sent home is because it's a HUGE risk to have a pregnant woman in a war zone. How many protests would there be if they refused to let a pregnant woman go home because she needs full medical care and a safe place to carry to term and have her baby? Just what in the hell are you proposing?

"Yeah, we got a few preggers here, just send them out in that mine field, if the land mines don't get em, they can stay. What? You mean we don't have the medical facilities to deliver babies? Let her give birth in a tent, they've been doin' it for thousands of years."

Sending them home is the humane thing to do. It's the only civilized way to handle it. They are making extra allowances by doing it, not less.

Bird of Prey said:

... It's especially irritating that there was no mention of the "dads" getting sent home, which is exactly what should happen.

Click to expand...

Why should a guy who got laid get sent home? The bottom line, that's all he did "wrong".

And keep in mind, we're not talking about attending a conference in Las Vegas or any other type of civilian business. A war zone is different. Yes, many "individuals" are deployed, but some combat troops deploy as a team and to split them up can be detrimental. Example: a bomb-loading crew [on one specific aircraft] is a team and cannot be split up. If one member cannot deploy, the entire team is cannot deploy. A huge mission impact.

tiny terror said:

In a combat zone? The medical staff is a touch busy keeping soldiers alive.

And I assume if her intention was to have an abortion and if she was in a place she could readily get one, the military wouldn't even know she was pregnant so they wouldn't be involved in the first place.

Click to expand...

Well, solders are able to find for recreational activities...but I suppose it gets back to this:

tiny terror said:

The reason is soldiers are not supposed to engaging in sex in a combat zone.

Click to expand...

This thread appears to more about pregnancy in combat than anything else. Pregnancy isn't a 'mistake' or 'failed birth control' in this context as much as it's evidence of breaking THAT rule.

tiny terror said:

...
(And condoms and other birth control, yes even the pill, are provided at the medical tent 24/7, since we're not stupid )

Click to expand...

So these things are given out without reminding soldiers that sexual activity in a combat zone is against regulations?

Dommo said:

The women should be punished and so should the guys who knock them up. Getting pregnant makes women a liability in the military, which can be dangerous to everyone involved. How useful is a pregnant woman going to be in a gunfight? How is a small naval vessel going to deal with the potential problems involved with pregnancies if they're out on in the middle of bum-fuck-nowhere?

That's the reason women should have been punished for it, because I know for a fact(having grown up on military bases and knowing A LOT of people in the military) that some women do use pregnancy as a way of getting out of their duties. My dad use to see this a lot when a ship was getting ready for deployment, every time, there'd be a few women who'd get themselves knocked up prior to shipping out.

I don't see anything wrong with the policies that General Cucolo was trying to implement, as it also puts the burden on anyone stupid enough to knock up one of their female colleagues. It wasn't unfair, and Barbara Boxer should shut up about it.

Click to expand...

Dommo said:

Pregnancy is no different. If you're going to have sex, you're RESPONSIBLE for the outcome, and while you're in military service, your body is government property. If you're unable to fulfill your contract, because of something YOU chose to do, then you are held accountable. If you're a woman and you want to have a family while you're in the service, you better do it on the military's schedule. If you're going to be deployed, that isn't the time to get knocked up. If you're going to be on shore duty for a few years, then go ahead, because it's not gong to seriously impact the way you work. However if you're a combat medic, and you chose to get knocked before you deploy, you better believe that you're going to be held accountable.

Click to expand...

Feel kind of strongly about this dont'cha, Dommo?

Well, it's all well and good to slam women in the military who get "knocked up" as being irresponsible and deserving of punishment, but you seem to be glossing over a basic biological imperative here. Namely that, it takes two to tango in order for a woman to become pregnant. It's a fuck sight harder for a woman to conceal a pregnancy than a man who walks around with a shit-eating grin on his face for nine months.

Here's a fact that both you and Maj. Gen. Anthony Cuccolo, who issued this brain-dead directive are overlooking: soldiers have sex. Straight, gay or otherwise, wherever there's a solider who's armed both with his weapon and his penis, there's going to be sex. Only a fool thinks otherwise and you can issue any order you want. As long as soldiers are human beings they're going to be free with their seed.

Trying to force "abstinence or else punishment" on young men and women thrown together in harsh and unusual circumstances is bullshit. You can't expect young men and women to seek comfort and relief wherever they can and whomever they decide to get it from.
Alright, let me get this straight. 1) Married servicemembers are allowed to room together. If you want to ban pregnancy, you might want to reevaluate this. 2) Male and female soldiers have the opportunity to visit one another's rooms, trailers, tents. It might not be allowed but let's be realistic, it happens...a lot. 3) Does a commander or a platoon sergeant have the ability to keep track of their soldiers every move? Not at all. While I was deployed male and female soldiers moved freely to and from one another's rooms. Doors were locked and people were having sex...a lot of sex. I know of two females from my unit who became pregnant in Iraq and who were very quietly redeployed.


So, here is my issue. If you can't even enforce the rules already at hand, why attempt to take the next step? There is absolutely no way you can keep soldiers from having sex. I would like to see soldiers pulling door guard outside of trailers instead of tower guard. Is this going to happen? No way in hell. I would like to see platoon sergeants randomly stop by rooms at all hours during the night. Is this going to happen? No, we all like our sleep. And anyone who has served in the military knows when a soldier wants to have sex, they'll have it and it doesn't matter where. You can't ban pregnancies if you can't even control the underlying problems.


Should soldiers be wise when partaking in sexual activities? Of course. Use a condom. Get on birth control. Emergency contraception should be readily available (which it seems we are fighting for now). I learned about sex education in 6th grade. If I don't want a bundle of joy I'm not going to have sex, or I'm going to use a condom, or I'm going to take a pill everyday at 12:30pm. If I'm serving in Iraq or Afghanistan I'm going to put my mission first. I'm going to do everything possible to not get pregnant. Maj. Gen. Cucolo III is naive for thinking he can solve the pregnancy problem by banning it. What soldiers need is a shot of common sense.


While Maj. Gen. Cucolo III attempts to figure out how to actually "ban" pregnancy (I think he's going to require that all commanders have eyes on the back of their heads to keep track of all their soldiers), I'll worry about more important things. For example, why a soldier is scouring the Internet for the equipment they need. Still? I thought we finally got everything we needed three or four years into the war. Guess not.


link

Let's apply some common sense solutions, not heavy-handed and unenforceable punishments to the relatively minor and isolated problem of soldiers becoming pregnant on the battlefield. The officers and NCO's have better things to do than walking around with flashlights or knocking on doors and shouting, "Cut that out."

benbradley said:

So these things are given out without reminding soldiers that sexual activity in a combat zone is against regulations?

Click to expand...

Just because I hand my son a condom doesn't mean I want him to have sex. I know he's going to have sex, so I hand it to him to be smart. If soldiers choose not to be smart about this, then they have to pay the price. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's reality.

My husband didn't give any high handed reason the emeds gave out condoms and birth control. He just said they did and he saw far too many dripping nasty... well you get the picture.