It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should Pregnant Troops Be Disciplined

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by earthdude

Well it will look very sad for the military putting pregnant womens in jail, don't you think, when their only crime is actually been pregnant.

Can you imagine telling your child that you went to jail because you wanted to have him or her.

and the government put you in that jail because you chose him or her.

Anyway you put it, the whole thing sounds just too silly.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by marg6043

I've become pregnant using birth control pills, and condoms. My sister became pregnant using the pill, and the shot. My mother became pregnant after getting HER TUBES TIED.

Punishing people for being fertile is counterproductive to humanity.

Further, it is counterproductive the production of societal members in the future who have the military-solidier-warrior mindset and personality traits.

Strong, warrior minded, intelligent people being punished for being fertile is a losing long term strategy.

This is a situation that will be solved with proper managment that takes into account basic human functions.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by badmoviefan

that maybe how the Navy works but the Marines have a written policy that encourages Women Marines to continue taking their birth control pills. even before they got to Parris Island, (Boot Camp) the doctors who did their entrance physicals will had made a notation in their records... true when they get to boot all non issued medications are confiscated. BCP's are replaced at the post pharmacy... I should know, many times I was the Sargent who marched groups of them to the infirmary

What we called Rifle Rubbers are not condoms... only big (Small) enough to tightly fit over the flash suppressor on a 16 or m4

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by Aeons

Yes you are right, is women that do not do well under birth control, but in todays modern medicine many birth control choices are very reliable.

BTW that second child was conceived while I was on birth control pills, but I admit that I may had missed a pill or two.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:54 PM
It depends on where they got pregnant. In the field, yes, there should be punishment, because obviously they aren't being deployed to get their grove on. If it's in country, while they are on leave, then no, no punishment at all.

Soldiers aren't being paid to screw around. They are being paid to kill the enemy.

If your on leave and you get pregnant, well, that's a different story, get these women out of harms way and let them be. But if it's determined that they got pregnant while deployed, (and it didn't happen because of rape) then obviously they were doing something they shouldn't.

You aren't deployed to get it on with other soldiers, you are deployed to fight for America.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by elevatedone

They should be honorably discharged, or if it's possible, given a desk job. And if they received any "bonus" for signing up, it should be repaid in full. This goes for the male and females responsible for the pregnancy. Obviously if it's a rape, that's entirely different. You are of no use to the Army if you are pregnant. The Army is not some summer camp you join because you had nothing better to do or couldn't get into college.. it's a job in which lives are at stake and the public pays way to much money for people to be screwing around. Ya, it's life, # happens. Shouldn't be on our dime though. Get pregnant, get booted out. If you get a soldier pregnant you get booted out for taking a soldier away from the Army.

The Armed Forces are supposed to be about discipline, no?

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by whatukno

Right. Because people fighting NEVER have sex.

You cannot punish or regulate away normal human functions. You might as well make a regulation for special ops navy divers to be punished for breathing inconveniently.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by Aeons

Right. Because people fighting NEVER have sex.

When you are deployed you are a resource of the military, not a person. You are a tool and not a human. You sign on for this and when you are deployed you should consider yourself not human but a tool of the military.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, neither is the military, but if your deployed and you become pregnant, you along with the man that impregnated you must be held accountable for the loss of resources.

War is not a mixer, and it's not a game.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:30 PM
Male solidiers getting people pregnant isn't new.

However, usually those children got left behind.

Which means that we increase the trainable-warrior type in a population that is likely not friendly. Think it over.

Long term goals require long term thinking.

Four years increments is not "long term" thinking. We as a society require that some logical thinking span generations, and what the outcome of a behaviour today means.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by whatukno

The people fighting are people, not machines.

Lack of proper management that can encompass behaviours that are literally programmed into ever biological entity on the planet is NOT INTELLIGENT.

Are you going to suggest that we regulate cellular division as well?

The fact that previous generations IGNORED or were too stupid to calculate the cost of not taking this into account is not a recommenation for a continuance of an illogical lack of management.

Humans are tools. One doesn't ignore weapons managment - pushing off responsibility for planning for a rifle to be a rifle makes for stupid decisions. Deciding that acting Human is inconvenient is a stupid human managment idea, that failed in the past, fails today, and will continue to fail forever.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:40 PM
First off let me state that I am Female And I have two children.

When you join the Military, you are making a commitment for a determined # of years. (ENTER INTO A CONTRACT)
During that time, You stand the chance of deployment, it's a known factor.

The way I see this is: She IS NOT being punished for being female OR for being Fertile... BUT for breach of contract. (as its called in civillian world)

I am not nor have I ever been enlisted, however... It is common sense, that IF you are enlisted, you take every precaution to NOT become preggers even if that means NOT getting your "groove on"

I have not heard if this was an accident or if she intentionally became preggers as a way to get "discharged" and sent home.

So to all the peeps on their soap boxes claiming her rights are being violated, well thats a crock of crap IMHO.
IF she did this with intent, then yes, she should be punished, held accountable for her actions, She is NOT stationed on a base condusive to having a child.
If it was an accident, well quite frankly she has put herself and others around her in a compromised situation.

Accidents happen, I fully understand that BUT.... (I as well got preggers while on the pill), I WASNT IN A WAR ZONE.

People need to be held accountable for their actions, I am sorry.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Robbi]

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by elevatedone

Should Pregnant Troops Be Disciplined[?]

Strictly from a humanist standpoint? No, of course not. But from a point of military expediency? Let's face it, combat zones are not where you would want to endure a pregnancy or be burdened emotionally as a prospective parent.

Beyond that, the CNN poll is nice but the military is not a democracy. Orders like this one are not out of the realm of ordinary. In fact, a soldier can be disciplined for becoming sunburned if it causes him/her to function at less than 100%.

These are all things people should consider before signing on the dotted line.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:56 PM
I am tempted to answer 'Only if they enjoy it'.
More seriously well they can't carry on if they are pregnant can they.
A discharge with a financial penalty maybe? A bit tough on accidental pregnancies though. You can't ask people to abstain for the duration and no birth control is 100%

[edit on 23-12-2009 by unicorn1]

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:11 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The frontlines of war are not the appropriate places to start a family - especially not for the enlisted.

I'm sure there might be a sense of "novelty" in concieving a child in said circumstances (imagine all the stories the kid can hear about his/her origins later on in life...
)...but nonetheless, they are there to perform their duty first and foremost.

Duties they agreed to upon enlisting.

I agree with the official position on this one.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:15 PM
Okay I was wrong in my total numbers ...

So far, eight female soldiers have redeployed from their expected yearlong deployment due to pregnancy. Four of the soldiers learned they were pregnant only after arriving to Iraq, and four others conceived while deployed, he said.

The soldiers who conceived after they deployed were punished with local letters of reprimand, which is a minimal punishment that Cucolo explained won’t damage their military careers. Two of the male soldiers also received local reprimands, he said.

“I consider the male soldier as responsible for taking a soldier out of the fight -- just as responsible as the female soldier that I lose,” he said.

Also, one male soldier received a more severe letter of reprimand that will be in his permanent record, due to his senior rank and because he was married. The fourth male soldier wasn’t punished, because the female soldier didn’t disclose his identity, the general added.


Defense Department regulations call for any servicemember who becomes pregnant in a combat theater or learns she’s pregnant after deploying to a combat theater to immediately redeploy to their home duty station for medical care....

Still we are talking about only 8 women out of a total of 22,000 under his command... Statistically that's nothing...over the couse of 1 year, you'll lose more people to appendicitis broken legs and general brain farts that cause other serious injuries... I still say this is a non-issue, except to the press

[edit on 23-12-2009 by DaddyBare]

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
Never has the peace slogan "Make Love Not War" been more relevant

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's pretty irresponsible to get knocked up or knock somebody up in a war zone.

Wasting resources and incapacitating a soldier.

If people cant keep it in their pants long enough to finish high school though why should I expect them to to keep themselves or their fellow servicemen alive?

Nobody thinks before they act. It's very disappointing.

Oh yeah, that's realistic because young in troopers 'young dumb and full of c**' don't get horny. People who could die any day are going to get that last piece of sex, you can bet on it.

Isn't sexual repression a bad thing? this is just part of being female equipped the military brass needs to deal with: they get pregnant.

I see the military POV, troops who wake up to the reality they are risking their lives for not much can hump their way home, literally a-lot better than a 20 mile hump in full gear, eh?

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Women in Army often get pregnant to get out of deployment or just get light duty. Often they won't name the father. They get to move out of barracks and other privileges. They have to make arrangements if are under deployment orders but can stay if the child has any problems - like separation anxiety. Sometimes the mother gets med-board out (general discharge) which is her goal.

I think you have good idea about mandatory birth control. Alot are on the pill, so it is encouraged.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by Aeons

I have to disagree, war is not the appropriate place to "get your freak on". The rifle analogy you put forth works here as well. What does the rifle need, versus, what does the rifle want.

Obviously a human needs certain things (sleep, food, medical care) but wants sex with the hot piece of A in the next bunkhouse over.

Sex is a want not a need.

If your on a base in the US and you get knocked up, well [snip] happens. But if your deployed that is a whole other ball game.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:58 PM
It's no good expecting young healthy people to abstain from sex for years on end. These are soldiers, not saints.

Many have been through several redeployments and are looking death in the face on a regular basis. And, odd as it may seem to those that haven't been there, being close to death makes you horny. Logic and rules are fine, but extreme horniness produces opiates in the brain which negate the importance of such things. People who don't understand this should just try living in a frightening situation for years that start seeming endless, 1,000s of miles from home. Intense relationships start fast and overwhelm people when they desperately need someone to hold on to.

The low numbers of soldiers getting pregnant in this situation shows the women deserve respect for coping with all this and avoiding pregnancy as well as they do.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in