It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Army general in Iraq issues pregnancy ban

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Army general in Iraq issues pregnancy ban


www.msnbc.msn.com

The Army general of U.S. forces in Northern Iraq has banned pregnancy among military personnel in his command, NBC News reported on Friday.

Anyone who becomes pregnant or impregnates another servicemember, including married couples assigned to the same unit, could face a court-martial and jail time, according to an order issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo.

The order, which went into effect on Nov. 4, was first reported by the military publication Stars and Stripes.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I find this astonishing news. Does this mean that now the military sanctions abortion among the female troops? Is this a ban on sex among consenting adults in the military in Iraq?
And if female or male military personell are convicted of causing a pregnancy, even if married, they could b subject to courtmartial or jail time. This is crazy!

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
My daughter came home from the army a few months ago, pregnant from boot camp.
What did I do?
Understood the way things are and differentiated it from the way things ought to be.

She will go back to her "finishing school" in May.
She wants to do it and I don't want to stop her.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It's An Outrage!

Pregnant women should be required to fight like anyone else.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Maybe something in the environment that would harm an unborn child, depleted uranium? That's not a secret anymore is it..



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well, I can understand this. To get pregnant while in a combat zone is completely irresponsible and well just stoopid. Either dont have sex or use serious protection (both parties).

Its really not that hard to abstain or protect.

I do not believe they are supporting abortion, because I seriously doubt that a soldier can get an abortion while in the desert. I believe they are forcing adults who cant be responsible, to be responsible for the sake of themselves and a pregnancy.

Pregnant women have no place in a combat zone.

[edit on December 19th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I don't think woman have a place in a combat zone period, I know I will get flamed for that but that's how I feel. The damage caused lasts a long time, even without physical harm happening.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I guess woman are getting pregnant to get out of Iraq. Naughty, naughty!



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 





Maybe something in the environment that would harm an unborn child, depleted uranium? That's not a secret anymore is it..


there are indeed very high rates of birth defects in Iraq. I read about this just recently. This has been a recent occurrence.

also, IMO, the military is totally in the right on this issue.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


Pregnant women have no place in a combat zone.



I agree but should they suffer court martial and jail time?

I think it's very unrealistic to think that young adults in the prime of their sexuality, in a stressful situation are going to abstain; and in the heat of the moment use contraception.

I remember what it was like at university and the stress from the occasional exam must have been trivial compared to the stress from being in a combat zone.

I think the military is approaching this problem about the same way they are dealing with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq....poorly!! And who suffers? The grunts.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
i used to manage a retail store, a while ago, and we had to enact a policy because of "similar" situations (bare with me)...


Our company had pretty loose guidelines for lunch breaks. And those guide lines became exploited by a few bad apples, so we had to crack down.

See, what was happening is that the smokers of the group were taking their allotted "paid breaks" to eat, visit friends, relax, etc, but then, on top of that, they were taking "smoke breaks" ... something that "non smokers" didn't have the privilege of doing.

So, we eliminated the additional "smoke breaks" and made it mandatory that you had to clock out for breaks...period.

Now, im not saying "smoking & pregnancy are the same things"...but they are similar.

They are both a choice. You don't wake up one day pregnant...unless you had unprotected sex...just like you don't wake up one day addicted to nicotine unless you smoked a cigarette.


So i say ban away. Its not fair that women get paid leave from the Military so they can have children & men do not.

It would be sexist NOT to ban it, unless you're going to give men something equal.

And anyone who disagrees with me:

Would you like it if men got "paid leave" to go play video games? Or to go on a 9 month fishing trip...and women did not?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


So smokers who have an addiction should not be hired then? I smoke, I used to take breaks and lots of them. I was told that I shouldn't as it was bad for the others, well when they catch up they can join me was the response. I was five times better at my job than a almost any non smoker so what's the problem? I have had non smokers come outside for a chat and a break because it's healthy to get away from "work" for a few minutes! Also when people have a smoke break they are often thinking or talking about work. Seriously, I have not seen any sun loungers or free beer for smokers.

A bit of a broad brush statement I think, employee perform maybe but break restrictions? If you do your job in three hours versus eight then why not have a break when you want? Pay me more and I will do more, talent and pay don't usually match though just have a look at a lot of management..

People should be treated like people and not resources, if your a manager / director and have that approach you do get the extra mile when it's needed.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 


i believe that this si something that businesses should have the right to decide for themselves, yes

and many of them already do:


www.bellaonline.com...
allnurses.com...
www.outsidethebeltway.com...

Its your choice. You don't HAVE TO SMOKE - just like you dont HAVE TO get pregnant.

But why should you become the exception to the rules if you choose to smoke or choose to get pregnant?

They're not harsh brush strokes. They're realistic brush strokes.




People should be treated like people and not resources, if your a manager / director and have that approach you do get the extra mile when it's needed.


And people should treat other people like people instead of saying "you owe me"

If i told you "i will give you 1 million dollars, but you have to meet me at the bus stop near 4th and main"

and your response was "screw you, bring it to me"


Chances are good that i'd be finding someone else to give 1 million dollars to






Im glad the military is standing up to feminism.

Im glad to see someone finally has the cojanes to say "We're going to be EQUAL - and NOT favor women and NOT favor men"



[edit on 19-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 



If you do your job in three hours versus eight then why not have a break when you want?


Because you don't get paid to do a single job. You get paid to do any job that needs to be done.

There is ALWAYS something that needs cleaning. You don't get paid to stand around and fiddle with yourself.

You get paid to monitor/sell/clean/stock/face/etc...

Fundamental difference.


NOW


If i hired you to, say, remodel my bathroom, and you say "i can have this done in 2 days"

Fine, take all the breaks you want...as long as its done in 2 days.

Big big big difference there...and i think you're intentionally ignoring it.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


So what about freedom of choice? If you do your job as well as the next man or woman what is the problem?

Should I as a business leader pick on any group based on a statistical criteria (colour, religion, sex, personal habit) and fire them? No I think not, diversity breeds innovation = success. Any good business leader with half a brain cell understands that generals don't win wars it's the troop regardless if they smoke or are pregnant.

Do you live in the land of the free by any chance?

Edit: Oh and you do get paid to do a single job, if not then change it.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Bunker or Bust]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Well, I think that adults choosing to enter the military should be held responsible for their actions. And people are not animals. They can control when they have sex. And those who cant, have serious issues. And the military has all ages - so its impossible to know who is in their "prime" when they are hooking up. And even if someone is in their prime they can EASILY abstain. Many people abstain all the time. It is choice. Hard maybe, but it is a choice.

Is it harsh? Yes, I think it is. Therefore, those horny soldiers better think twice about knocking boots with each other or make sure they are highly protected. If I knew I faced something harsh, you better believe im going to abstain from whatever it is. People can survive without sex - even if it sucks to abstain from it


[edit on December 19th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
reply to post by Snarf
 


So what about freedom of choice? If you do your job as well as the next man or woman what is the problem?
Freedom of choice is not a freedom granted by our constitution. Your employer has the right to choose his or her ideal employee, just like you have the right to choose your ideal employer. That 'right' is just an ideal, not a law.



Should I as a business leader pick on any group based on a statistical criteria (colour, religion, sex, personal habit) and fire them? No I think not, diversity breeds innovation = success. Any good business leader with half a brain cell understands that generals don't win wars it's the troop regardless if they smoke or are pregnant.


Okay, you are intentionally changing the rules to make it so you win this argument. Please...lets keep this conversation as "grown up" as possible. Being born black is not the same thing as choosing to smoke a cigarette. One is a choice. The other is decided for you. I think its wrong to not hire because they're black, but i think its completely acceptable to not hire a smoker because they'll make the work place stink.



Do you live in the land of the free by any chance?
Yes. All my life



Edit: Oh and you do get paid to do a single job, if not then change it.



i dont understand what you mean by this?


If i hire someone to be a retail associate, they do not have one single job. They have a laundry list of things to do every day.

If i hire a contractor to remodel my bathroom, he has one job. Tkae my bathroom that looks like this

and make it look like this




[edit on 19-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Not wishing to derail the thread but being "grown up"

Would you hire a gay person, someone with a radically different political view, brown eyes we can go on and be silly about it all day long. I Picked hard points but they are valid regardless.

A smoker chooses to smoke, what right do you have to stop them from doing something in the land of the free which is not illegal? If they smell ask to be moved somewhere else in the office. Maybe smokers together? Your statement was based in the fact they do less work, you did not take into account an individuals ability or value to a business.

Should I fire you because you have a lesser car and are sometime late to work due to a lack of horse power?

You can't pick a choose,



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 



You still didn't answer my question. Should military people that are involved in a pregnancy be subject to court martial or jail time?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Totally not, When someone enlists it does not say you give your right to have children.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join