Should women have to be on birth control in the military?

[DisgruntledVirus]

I am for equal rights, and believe that women shouldn't be prohibited from any job just because of their sex. Now they need to be able to do the job effectively, and not get the job just because they are female.

Women want equality in the military, and life in general for that matter. Then when they get deployed, they realize they don't want to go and get knocked up. With them being knocked up, they are no longer deployable. They agreed to serve for x amount of years, and they should be required to deploy if they are part of a squad that deploys. I don't believe that they should be able to get out of deploying by just getting preg.

So, should we force our female soldiers to be on some form of birth control as part of the contract they sign?

 

[Aberforth]

Yes, if they are deployed in hostile areas/countries.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Yes, if they are deployed in hostile areas/countries.

This is certainly reasonable. During Peace Time is a little different, but I think even then it is not unreasonable to make such a condition, with the possible exception for Career Military whom would need some leeway to have Children while at a reasonable age.

 

[PokerGuy]

No. For one thing, BC is not accepted by all religions, and BC (depending on the form) has potential medical side effects. Forcing someone to do something that can cause them permanent medical complications is not right.

 

[halik]

There's a small group of people that believe that BS is wrong (nutty Christians predominantly... it was the work of the christian right over the past decade to define that life starts at conception) , so that probably won't work all that well.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
No. For one thing, BC is not accepted by all religions, and BC (depending on the form) has potential medical side effects. Forcing someone to do something that can cause them permanent medical complications is not right.

QFT. No way.

 

[MovingTarget]

During peacetime? No. Besides, although most BC is highly effective, it is not 100%. If you accept having females in the military, you have to plan around the inevitability of a few of them getting pregnant. Besides, this debate really springs from the other thread about the woman in the ready reserve (whose committment had expired) getting pregnant and the Army wanting to call up/redeploy her. Even if I accept having women on some form of BC in the military, I cannot accept them being forced to do so after they leave...biological clocks ticking and all. Being in the military should not bar you from having children. The military must work around that if they accept having females in their ranks...

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
During peacetime? No. Besides, although most BC is highly effective, it is not 100%. If you accept having females in the military, you have to plan around the inevitability of a few of them getting pregnant. Besides, this debate really springs from the other thread about the woman in the ready reserve (whose committment had expired) getting pregnant and the Army wanting to call up/redeploy her. Even if I accept having women on some form of BC in the military, I cannot accept them being forced to do so after they leave...biological clocks ticking and all. Being in the military should not bar you from having children. The military must work around that if they accept having females in their ranks...

I agree on the RR, but that thread raised the question for active duty in my mind.

 

[Nebor]

I think some of you would be suprised by the number of pregnant women in the military. Everyone knows about the great benefits, so you have a significant amount of women joining just to get pregnant ASAP. Bam, undeployable, light duty, easy street.

I'm not saying mandatory BC is a solution, but something needs to be done policy-wise.

 

[nobodyknows]

Perhaps if they agree to it when they enlist, but that's the only way it should be done IMO.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I am for equal rights, and believe that women shouldn't be prohibited from any job just because of their sex. Now they need to be able to do the job effectively, and not get the job just because they are female.

Women want equality in the military, and life in general for that matter. Then when they get deployed, they realize they don't want to go and get knocked up. With them being knocked up, they are no longer deployable. They agreed to serve for x amount of years, and they should be required to deploy if they are part of a squad that deploys. I don't believe that they should be able to get out of deploying by just getting preg.

So, should we force our female soldiers to be on some form of birth control as part of the contract they sign?

Birth control pills are no guarantee of no pregnancy. Why not surgically remove their uterus?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: halik
There's a small group of people that believe that BS is wrong (nutty Christians predominantly... it was the work of the christian right over the past decade to define that life starts at conception) , so that probably won't work all that well.

Similarly, it's been the work of the left to define that life begins at birth, which is no less ludicrous.

 

[Elias824]

well anyone want to mention that birth control screws up hormones, and might make combat situations more difficult for them

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: halik
There's a small group of people that believe that BS is wrong (nutty Christians predominantly... it was the work of the christian right over the past decade to define that life starts at conception) , so that probably won't work all that well.

Similarly, it's been the work of the left to define that life begins at birth, which is no less ludicrous.

So the founding fathers were all lefties then?

Your argument carries no weight, seeing as all our civil rights are afforded to us at birth. Legally you become a person at birth and that has been the case for centuries. Hell, there is a reason why you get a name when you're born, not when you're conceived...

It was only the religious push the definition elsewhere in the past decade, mostly a strategic move to frame the abortion discourse into their favor.

 

[Skitzer]

Absolutely Not!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Forcing someone to do something that can cause them permanent medical complications is not right.

I take it a step further. Forcing people to take drugs that have side effects on a great number of people is no less than torture.

 

[aka1nas]

Also, in this particular case, the woman had already been discharged and was in the active reserves. Aside from the ethical issues of requiring this for active duty female personnel, it seems somewhat beyond the pale to require this of female soldiers that have been partially released back into civilian life.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Forcing someone to do something that can cause them permanent medical complications is not right.

I take it a step further. Forcing people to take drugs that have side effects on a great number of people is no less than torture.

There are many forms of BC. *Most* women are able to find one that works.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Forcing someone to do something that can cause them permanent medical complications is not right.

I take it a step further. Forcing people to take drugs that have side effects on a great number of people is no less than torture.

There are many forms of BC. *Most* women are able to find one that works.

They should not be forced to "find one that works", they should not be forced to take any kind of medication for a normal human condition.

 

[Carmen813]

Frankly, no. There are already enough issues in the military regarding rape of female soliders.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Biology has no bearing on responsibility. If someone purposely decides to act in a way that prevents them from doing their assigned duties, then if it's getting stoned or getting pregnant, I don't care.

Here is how I would handle it. Upon enlistment, a woman gets a Depo Provera shot every 3 months unless there is a documented medical reason for it. Then she gets rejected just as if she had flat feet. If she is concerned about health, don't enlist. If it's a religious issue, don't enlist. I wouldn't expect a penicillin factory to have to put a severely allergic person work on a production line, and I wouldn't expect someone who thinks pork is a sin to stop her employer from selling pork chops. If you can't comply, then don't apply.

Now I can understand career women wanting children. Allow special leave time based time of service during fertile years. She gets a chance to get pregnant and is assigned duty that fits her condition. She then has post delivery time off. Then it's back to work as usual. That way the service can plan for her needs, and she can have kids without disrupting or shirking her responsibilities.

It's a compromise, but I don't believe in "equal rights" which free women of responsibilities they elected to take on. On the other hand reasonable accommodation isn't a problem either.

 

[palehorse]

A female active duty friend of mine is a Platoon Sergeant who is currently deployed to Iraq. During the four months prior to her deployment, 8 of the 12 women in her Platoon got pregnant -- four of which were not married at the time. They, of course, did not deploy, leaving her Platoon below 80% combat strength.

Coincidence?

Just sayin... I still voted 'No' for many of the reasons already addressed in this thread. There needs to be another solution though...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Besides, this debate really springs from the other thread about the woman in the ready reserve (whose committment had expired) getting pregnant and the Army wanting to call up/redeploy her.

Actually, just for the record, the woman's commitment had not expired. IRR status is a contractual commitment for every enlisted soldier. The details are spelled out in the original contract just as the active requirements are. Example: my first hitch was a 6+2, meaning six years of active status followed by two years in the IRR.

I digress...

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: halik
There's a small group of people that believe that BS is wrong (nutty Christians predominantly... it was the work of the christian right over the past decade to define that life starts at conception) , so that probably won't work all that well.

Similarly, it's been the work of the left to define that life begins at birth, which is no less ludicrous.

So the founding fathers were all lefties then?

Your argument carries no weight, seeing as all our civil rights are afforded to us at birth. Legally you become a person at birth and that has been the case for centuries. Hell, there is a reason why you get a name when you're born, not when you're conceived...

It was only the religious push the definition elsewhere in the past decade, mostly a strategic move to frame the abortion discourse into their favor.

Yes, it is certainly a strategic move, because our argument makes philosophical sense.

I guess then we have to return to the basics. Are you going to reasonably claim that it's permissable to kill a child 0.1 seconds before its birth?

Legal rights have been wrongly allocated before, they are now, and they will be again in the future.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: halik
There's a small group of people that believe that BS is wrong (nutty Christians predominantly... it was the work of the christian right over the past decade to define that life starts at conception) , so that probably won't work all that well.

That's actually been their stance for a very long time, not just the past decade. Regardless, regulating reproductive health directly is a road I don't want to see us start on.