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 charges mom for refusing to leave infant

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
MA, if there was a draft I would say you have a point. But this woman SIGNED ON with the Army voluntarily. VOLUNTARILY. No one forced her to do it, just as no one forced her to become pregnant.

IMO she showed incredibly bad judgment by not using birth control and then expecting leniency from the military. She's guilty of dereliction of duty, no matter which way you look at it.



You are assuming she didn't. What if the birth control failed?? Condoms break. Not everyone wants to abort their babies.

Why not just give her a dishonorable discharge or something?? How is putting her in prison going to solve anything?




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


As I remember, there's a pill for that, too, the responsibility's not just on the guy. My girlfriend takes 'em, so I'm pretty sure they're not a figment of my imagination. And I don't give a damn what excuse someone in her position tries to put forth or what someone tries to put forth for her, when I was in the Corps, there was no higher obligation, no higher duty, no greater sacrifice to be made than that owed to my brothers. As I said before, personal desires, foibles, and shortcomings are secondary. When you take that oath, you lay yourself down for a higher cause. And you serve one purpose until the hour you're discharged. And you owe but 2 loyalties: your country and your brothers-in-arms. EVERYTHING else in your life is secondary. She knew exactly what she was doing when she signed on, and as an adult and a member of our armed services, was entirely responsible for the full consequences of her actions, unintended or not. If she thought that a term in the armed services is like a job at Wal-Mart that you can drop at your leisure because something unexpected came up, she's sorely mistaken, and probably joined for the wrong damn reasons. Constant diligence, and care for your mind and body is what is required of you when you take up the burden, and she was obviously unable to cope with such responsibility, or this would have been averted from the start.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griever0311
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


As I remember, there's a pill for that, too, the responsibility's not just on the guy. My girlfriend takes 'em, so I'm pretty sure they're not a figment of my imagination. And I don't give a damn what excuse someone in her position tries to put forth or what someone tries to put forth for her, when I was in the Corps, there was no higher obligation, no higher duty, no greater sacrifice to be made than that owed to my brothers. As I said before, personal desires, foibles, and shortcomings are secondary. When you take that oath, you lay yourself down for a higher cause. And you serve one purpose until the hour you're discharged. And you owe but 2 loyalties: your country and your brothers-in-arms. EVERYTHING else in your life is secondary. She knew exactly what she was doing when she signed on, and as an adult and a member of our armed services, was entirely responsible for the full consequences of her actions, unintended or not. If she thought that a term in the armed services is like a job at Wal-Mart that you can drop at your leisure because something unexpected came up, she's sorely mistaken, and probably joined for the wrong damn reasons. Constant diligence, and care for your mind and body is what is required of you when you take up the burden, and she was obviously unable to cope with such responsibility, or this would have been averted from the start.


The pill isn't 100% effective, either.

Many women get pregnant on the pill.

She had a plan in order when the baby was conceived and born, but the plans fell through due to unseen difficulties.

So, people should be imprisoned for being irresponsible?? How would we ever house them all???



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The lack of empathy displayed in many of these posts is scary.

Chivalry for mother's must be dead these days, separate a mother from her child during it's most important formative years, great, just what kids need these days.

Most of you are saying too bad so sad for the woman.

I am curious, do you say that for the child too?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


The mother CHOSE to breach her contract by irresponsibly getting pregnant. The problem is hers and hers alone.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


Imprisonment for irresponsbility for the civilian population of our nation? No. For the military? Absolutely. Ours is a culture where your actions - good or ill - affect everyone around you, and your inability to do your duty means that people die or are otherwise crippled by your inaction.

And if she was worried about a condom breaking AND birth control failing, there's this time-honored technique to avoiding pregnancy called "keeing your damn legs shut."



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


We are talking about a soldier who decided desertion is best during war how do you know she won't do the same to her child as she did to her fellow soldiers who should be counting on her. She had all the choices and had made them all wrong. This is 2010 not 1950 there were many options! Prison is filled with people who made the incorrect choice. The child could be raised by a childless couple who could love and cherish and never abandon it or use it as a poker chip when gambling! To say other is to suggest adoption does not work. However in the military in time of war examples must be set otherwise why not allow anyone who decided war is not for them and it is okay for them to leave. Why should another soldier take her place, how fair is that for that soldiers children? Where do you draw the line against desertion? Why is it I am the only one using this word? Is it that I am the only one who served under fire here? This is in the time a woman can control many things and she decided to use her child, unlike many other women serving in war zones who have children, as a Ace hidden in a card game if her gamble to collect the service benefits if caught with orders to go to a war zone. That is cold and calculating which is not good qualities for a mother to have! How would you feel when if you found out that you were an excuse for desertion. Would you feel used or loved? What kind of example of your mother behaviour would you learn from her actions?

[edit on 1/16/2010 by IceHappy]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Heres my thoughts. If you want to be a soldier, dont be a mother or a father. Thats not responsible. Its not responsible to leave a kid at home wondering how many bits you are coming home in. Plus that has to take your mind off the job you do right ?
So , EITHER contribute to the genepool, or get yourself removed from it while wearing the colours of a corrupt government, but dont try both.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
We don't know if the pregnancy was an accident or not.

Birth control never fails, right?
Or do we expect American women in the services to be completely abstinent, while they serve?

Either way sending this woman to jail is just wrong. She innocent from my viewpoint.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
We don't know if the pregnancy was an accident or not.


The point is that it DOES NOT MATTER. Either way, she committed a serious crime. It does not matter why she did it; if I rob a bank to pay for my daughter's ransom, it does not change the fact that I robbed a bank and seriously messed up other peoples' lives, regardless of any good intent I may have had.

To address your second point: in the military, attitude of professionalism, restraint, and temperance is required that she obviously did not possess. Some people can have fun and enjoy themselves without messing it up for themselves. She's not one of those troops. You do not undertake personal actions that would compromise your unit's combat effectiveness - in her case, get knocked up. If being abstinent was what it took for her to fulfill her obligations, then - as I said before - she should have kept her legs shut. If that's what they have to do so they can play soldier, that's on them.

[edit on 2010/1/16 by Griever0311]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Griever0311
 


No , she should have quit the military and done something uselful, like raising a kid. And no one can deny her THAT right.
Thing is of course that the USA shouldnt need a damned military because they have a secret service with a staff the size of a small godamned nation, and a budget without a spending limit. All the terrorists should have died quietly without fuss, and all your current soldiers should have been left snoozing on bases and wondering what the hell bullets are for. Fact is US and UK intelligence is bad value for money , which is why the filthy terror spreaders can get in. Personaly I think the intelligence community is LETTING these things happen to give the powermongers an excuse to keep getting rich from war. I believe that the entire terror campaign by Osama bin Laden and his merry band of crack heads was probably ordered by the people who gave they guy his training, the CIA.
This woman should be at home looking after her child, not going to war, and not going to jail. Her friends should arm up , defend her house, and shoot any bounty hunter or MP near the joint ...right in the face.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
We don't know if the pregnancy was an accident or not.

Birth control never fails, right?
Or do we expect American women in the services to be completely abstinent, while they serve?



Kind of shoots that whole Equal Rights thing in the foot, doesn't it?

We don't have enough information to make a descision one way or another. We don't know what options the Army gave her. This article is slanted against the Army, but, that's the idea. As was previously mentioned as long as there is media attention odds are slim that she will go to prison. On the other hand, she may have rejected the Army's help with the intent of forcing the issue to obtain a discharge. I'd like to know who's paying for her lawyer?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
We don't know if the pregnancy was an accident or not.

Birth control never fails, right?
Or do we expect American women in the services to be completely abstinent, while they serve?



Kind of shoots that whole Equal Rights thing in the foot, doesn't it?

. I'd like to know who's paying for her lawyer?


I agree with you on the whole Equal Rights thing. 6 years of service in the US Army with two Honourable Discharges, I witnessed many women (Many) who when bored with the Army became pregnant and applied for Honourable Discharge. Upon receiving the HD they then terminate the Pregnancy and used the GI Bill to start University and a new life. A man clearly cannot just up and leave the service. A friend of mine who got tired of the service, Viet Nam had just finished, who was also issued a Silver Star award went AWOL to get his discharge. In the corner of the room he uses for an in home office he has on one wall Silver Star Award and Statement of the events framed with one Honourable Discharge. One the other wall next to this corner is his Bad Conduct Discharge. The first time I saw this I smiled and he said, "I know what you are thinking, that I am a true Gemini. One wall I am a great man and on the other wall I am not worth a cr*p! Which am I?"

No not equal at all!

Who is paying for the lawyer? JAG (military lawyer) is paid for by the tax payers.

This lady is a Deserter and in previous wars they shot Men for this crime and again a 2nd proof to you that the service and/or life is not equal rights!

"Birth control never fails?" I feel that this problem is not failure of birth control but a cold calculating way of one sex to not honour their contract which they signed and they still expect the benefits as if they did!

BTW readers this is the second case in the news in a year a woman deserted her transfer papers to a war zone. The last one a woman claimed she was gay and people threatened her life and chickened walked to Canada. Another case that in the service there is no equal rights. The men just have to stay as they have no female way out of a war zone or the service.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by IceHappy
 





Upon receiving the HD they then terminate the Pregnancy


Ok now that I have zero empathy for and would recommend jail time. That is flagrant abuse.

But that is completely different than a service woman who has a three month old and is told she has to deploy to Afghanistan. ONLY then does she ask for an HD.
What is going on is pretty clear cut.

I just call for common sense with empathy in these matters.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Blue_Jay33]

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join