Should Pregnant Troops Be Disciplined

Originally posted by whatukno
. . .
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.
. . .

This attitude disgusts me.
People don't stop being human, and having the needs of a human, just because they join the military.

I smell a tool alright, but that tool has never been a soldier.

reply to post by Kailassa


Sex is a want, not a need. It may be a strong want, but it is a want none the less.

Having been in the military, contrary to popular belief once you sign up, you lose certain rights to your body. Under some commands, a service personell is not allowed to have any sort of facial hair, can be disciplined for altering their body in any way, tattooing and body piercing. So this is a legal order by the comanding officer on the ground. It takes 2 to tango and make a baby, so he is putting their focus on the job at hand, and not on procreating. Women fought for the right to go into a combat situation and no matter if they like it or not, but they have to deal with not getting pregnant. If you think about it, you are the member of a team, each team member is trained to do a specific job, all having to work to achieve one goal. Then one of your team members has to leave due to being pregnant, and be replaced, how would you feel? And in a combat situation, you have to rely on the person you have been training with, knowing that you have to rely on them with your life.

Combat readiness is paramount.

You can get a court martial for getting a sunburn, because it is considered a negligent injury.

To maintain combat readiness the commander has a duty to issue whatever orders are necessary.

Only ever biological entity on the planet exhibits some form of this behaviour.

I'm sure that doesn't mean anything.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Sex is a want, not a need. It may be a strong want, but it is a want none the less.

The obvious solution is an all gay military. That would also eliminate the need for the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

It's brilliant I tells ya, it's brilliant!

Cogs are replacable. Since you need to train to replace those who die or need to leave for other medical reasons, the exact person is not necessary.

The training is not that inflexible - and if it is, that should be corrected immediately.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having been in the military, contrary to popular belief once you sign up, you lose certain rights to your body. Under some commands, a service personell is not allowed to have any sort of facial hair, can be disciplined for altering their body in any way, tattooing and body piercing. So this is a legal order by the comanding officer on the ground. It takes 2 to tango and make a baby, so he is putting their focus on the job at hand, and not on procreating. Women fought for the right to go into a combat situation and no matter if they like it or not, but they have to deal with not getting pregnant. If you think about it, you are the member of a team, each team member is trained to do a specific job, all having to work to achieve one goal. Then one of your team members has to leave due to being pregnant, and be replaced, how would you feel? And in a combat situation, you have to rely on the person you have been training with, knowing that you have to rely on them with your life.

I agree with other posters, soldiers should act responsibly and like adults when in a war situation. Keeping their legs closed and trousers up is common sense. I don't think they should be severely punished, but there should be a punishment of some sorts for both parties involved if a woman becomes pregnant etc.

I can't remember the title of the book. And as I recall, the book was supposed to be way above my level of understanding, me being just a little kid. It was a John Steinbeck story. There was a group of people, kept in a cage, all together, in misery, and there was a man and a woman and they kept screwing. It was their way with dealing with all the BS. They didn't care about the possible outcome of their actions. They just wanted some sort of relief from the crap situation they were in.

My wife asked me, how the hell did you get through your deployments in the army? I said, "Honey, I am just one tough and moral SOB." She said, "Yeah, right. When do the bastard kids start arriving upon our doorsteps?" LOL

reply to post by Kailassa


Yep. And in accounting terms for businesses, people are expenses, not assets. Interesting how it all works. People are just expendables. Whether in the military or in business, and, dare I add, in politics as well.

Make love, not war.

reply to post by Kailassa


IMO, the fact that so few women have this .. er... problem .. shows that they are indeed more guilty.. it's not that out of thousands of women in the Army, thousands are getting pregnant. It's just a few who decide that their wants are more important than the Army's needs.. they don't take their obligation fully, and should be discharged (along with the males) from the Army. Simple as that. Want to play grab ass, stick to the college campus life, stay out of the Army.

I didn't read all the posts, but I'm in Afghanistan as I write this and it is against general order 1 for anyone to have sex here, alcohol is also banned and the order goes into many other restrictions. With that said, if a military person got pregnant here then it is rather obvious she and her partner disobeyed general order 1. If someone is caught drinking, once again they disobeyed a direct order from the commanding general officer.

Enough said on this subject, don’t you agree?

During the Second World War a chemical was added to the salt to reduce sexual urges. I think the Australians and British added bromide and the Americans salt petre, so perhaps the military could consider this, or would that be considered abuse today?

As a woman I just don't get why anyone would agree to fight a war other than in the event of an invasion of one's homeland. History tells us that most,if not all,wars are manipulated into being for the benefit of the money changers and other such "elites" who gain financially and sacrificially. The end result for the soldiers who survive physically is often hell on earth, with little recompense for lost innocence.

As ex-Army myself,

YES, they should be punished.

They signed the paper agreeing to the terms, they knew very well they'd have to lay personal wants and desires to the side.

You are a soldier with an order.

It has to deal with "being fit for duty". If you're pregnant, you're not fit for duty and "breaking your contract" with the military.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Kailassa

 

IMO, the fact that so few women have this .. er... problem .. shows that they are indeed more guilty.. it's not that out of thousands of women in the Army, thousands are getting pregnant. It's just a few who decide that their wants are more important than the Army's needs.. they don't take their obligation fully, and should be discharged (along with the males) from the Army. Simple as that. Want to play grab ass, stick to the college campus life, stay out of the Army.

Get your head out of the clouds. You really believe the low numbers getting pregnant mean such an incredibly small number are screwing?

Despite talk of rules and regulations, sex is a biological imperative. I'm sure many resist it, but there will also, inevitably be many, perhaps having a higher libido or having been more traumatised, who won't. Most of these, as has been pointed out by service-folk in this thread, will be using birth control. However no method of birth control is 100% effective.
- Theoretically speaking, not even hysterectomy. So a small percentage of women are bound to get pregnant.

If any of these few pregnant women when to this extreme to escape a war zone, then who wants them there? Their comrades could well be safer with them being replaced.

No large group on Earth stays in a state of complete chastity for long. There is sex in convents, sex in the Catholic church, sex in Boy Scouts, and, surprise, surprise, there is sex in the military.

The end result of this can only be bad. The woman gets punished, because she's easy to spot, she's the one carrying the baby. But what about the man? Will she dob in the man she may love, or will she carry the blame alone, or even worse, pick some grudge guy to pin the blame onto?

Once again it will be a case of: carry the baby, carry the blame.

You sign up for the military, you sign a contract. Sorry your biological needs aren't an imperative, these are wants. You don't need to screw.

If you do, take precautions, if those don't work, well, guess what? You have to face the music.

Should the guy be in the same boat? Absolutely!



[edit on 12/24/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by Nineteen
During the Second World War a chemical was added to the salt to reduce sexual urges. I think the Australians and British added bromide and the Americans salt petre....

This is false.

www.snopes.com...

As a woman I just don't get why anyone would agree to fight a war other than in the event of an invasion of one's homeland.

That's a sweet sentiment, but it make no sense. Why would you want the enemy to ravage your homeland when he might be stopped elsewhere? Would you want an attack like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor on a regular basis?

History tells us that most,if not all,wars are manipulated into being for the benefit of the money changers and other such "elites" who gain financially and sacrificially.

History tells us no such thing. Your freedom was paid for with the blood of those whom you have never met and will never know. You should strive to learn that lesson in your lifetime.

The end result for the soldiers who survive physically is often hell on earth, with little recompense for lost innocence.

Those who serve in the cause of freedom know the satisfaction that comes from serving a cause greater than oneself.


[edit on 2009/12/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Im sorry, but as a female who as been in many combat zones... I have been tried beyond all reason, after months of sh*t.. and the men are SOOOO fine... Sex IS going to happen... The men need it.. And so do we... Especially after putting a 9mm round into a serbian commander who would not let me treat the wounded.... Not just a thought... But done and done.. And i am not ashamed because of it... And neither should be the men i saved.. yeah me!!! A lowly redhead biatch who loves men, and women, and children.... and though us women get emotional... You f*ckwits on the frontline had better be aware that we too DO risk all WE are to save you... NO MAN gets left behind....

SHEESH... lol...

kendra xxx

You guys should appreciate us more... Do you think we like to see our fellow countrymen with limbs blown off? Do you think we dont get affected by the fact that the dead have wives and kids? Do you even realise that in a hot extraction with bullets and bombs flying around that who is treating you is i a woman? or a part of the team?...
we have shared all of the same sh&t as you.. And have carried you under fire... When are we going to win your respect???

I myself have killed for you!! With a 9mm.. Me a freakin woman! To mend people... Then people whinge when we get preggars coz we need some comfort in the worst circumstances imaginable... Like when a guy had died and his bro in the same unit was injured too... I held him all night... Not because its my job but because i am a woman.. An english woman at that!! That was along time ago but the premise still stands... We love you guys.. Please dont die....

reply to post by Selahobed


If it was YOU offering, well that would just not be fair there is only so much a guy can take before caving in to temptation.

Hey, Torquemada
Whaddaya say?
I just got back
From the auto-da-fé
Auto-da-fé
What's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't
To do but you do anyway