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

[JS80]

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.

:roll: there are plenty of non-religious people who think abortion at 8 months 29 days is murder

 

[jonks]

foreced BC? that's a pretty inelegant solution. if you're worried about them breaking a contract then put a penalty clause for withdrawing from service. simple, non-invasive, and not fucking barbaric

 

[Farang]

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.

This is already done everywhere

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yet another reason I'd never go in.

Besides cream puff generals who ban the Islamic war manual (Qu'ran) at our academies, and the failure to head lessons from Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and past generals the place is filled with deadbeats.

Military is major deadbeat drain on USA and can't survive.. What probably only about 300,000 out of 2 million actually do war? I have the greatest admiration for those type 11b, pilots etc but rest are just sucking air and tax dollars. Kick them out if they can't do the duty they signed up for - General Discharge - no redefining standards or duties.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: 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.

Yet another reason I'd never go in.

Besides cream puff generals who ban the Islamic war manual (Qu'ran) at our academies, and the failure to head lessons from Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and past generals the place is filled with deadbeats.

Military is major deadbeat drain on USA and can't survive.. What probably only about 300,000 out of 2 million actually do war? I have the greatest admiration for those type 11b, pilots etc but rest are just sucking air and tax dollars. Kick them out if they can't do the duty they signed up for - General Discharge - no redefining standards or duties.

You realize that for every combat troop, you need to have several troops for support (supply lines, base security, etc....)?

 

[fskimospy]

Mandatory birth control is simply not an option. Our country would never accept it, and they shouldn't accept it. Not only that, but it's not really enforceable. What if some woman gets pregnant anyway? The pill is only 99% effective. Do you start discharging one out of every 100 sexually active women in the military, even if they did nothing wrong? That's not going to fly as you are basically denying women the ability to have a family while in the military. Never going to happen.

The biggest problem with women getting pregnant in the military is that they aren't deployable. Right now there's no downside for a woman timing her pregnancy to avoid deployment, and so why deploy when you can... not deploy? What I would recommend is making deploying more desirable for people. Maybe something on the order of requiring a certain number of deployments to qualify for promotion. Something like X months deployed for E-4/5 X+6 months deployed for E-6, etc. (I'd have to think more about exact numbers, just an idea) That would allow women to still get pregnant and have the families that they want, but it would impose a penalty for people who continually missed deployments and screwed with the readiness of their units. With this idea a woman could miss a deployment here or there in order to have a family, but the deadbeats who were just trying to get out of it would pay a price.

I don't think America would go for my idea either, but it certainly seems better than the mandatory birth control thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Zebo

Yet another reason I'd never go in.

Besides cream puff generals who ban the Islamic war manual (Qu'ran) at our academies, and the failure to head lessons from Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and past generals the place is filled with deadbeats.

Military is major deadbeat drain on USA and can't survive.. What probably only about 300,000 out of 2 million actually do war? I have the greatest admiration for those type 11b, pilots etc but rest are just sucking air and tax dollars. Kick them out if they can't do the duty they signed up for - General Discharge - no redefining standards or duties.

You realize that for every combat troop, you need to have several troops for support (supply lines, base security, etc....)?

Not only that, but a large reason why our troops are so incredibly combat effective is due to the support behind them.

 

[KentState]

Are deployed fathers allowed to be with their newborns or do they have to wait for a leave? My problem is that woman has the ability make family and children a number one priority when enlisted or deployed, while a father is not given the same option.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: 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.

Yet another reason I'd never go in.

Besides cream puff generals who ban the Islamic war manual (Qu'ran) at our academies, and the failure to head lessons from Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and past generals the place is filled with deadbeats.

Military is major deadbeat drain on USA and can't survive.. What probably only about 300,000 out of 2 million actually do war? I have the greatest admiration for those type 11b, pilots etc but rest are just sucking air and tax dollars. Kick them out if they can't do the duty they signed up for - General Discharge - no redefining standards or duties.

You realize that for every combat troop, you need to have several troops for support (supply lines, base security, etc....)?

No problem with some support troops it's the tasks that become a burden or cause resentment to their fellow soldiers that are issue and turning forces into maternity ward here.

 

[ScottyB]

Chemically sterilized while active.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Chemically sterilized while active.

God I hope you're kidding. Otherwise, you are seriously creepy.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: KentState
Are deployed fathers allowed to be with their newborns or do they have to wait for a leave? My problem is that woman has the ability make family and children a number one priority when enlisted or deployed, while a father is not given the same option.

Deployed men receive emergency leave and a round-trip plane ticket home if/when their wife goes into labor. They then have X-number of days (maybe 14?) to spend at home before returning downrange. The same applies for all medical emergencies involving a soldier's immediate family -- parents, siblings, spouses, etc -- as long as the relatives are coherent enough to notify the Red Cross before, during, or after the emergency.

One of my buddies just came home last week after his wife had twins.

 

[mxyzptlk]

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.

The military already forces its members to take experimental drugs with permanent, negative side effects. [/tinfoil]

At least BC is a little more well known.

If anything, I'd think they should be giving soldiers libido inhibiting drugs anyway.. they should be doing their duty, not chasing booty.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

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.

The military already forces its members to take experimental drugs with permanent, negative side effects. [/tinfoil]

At least BC is a little more well known.

If anything, I'd think they should be giving soldiers libido inhibiting drugs anyway.. they should be doing their duty, not chasing booty.

That's not really so much tinfoil. There was a lot of controversy over the Anthrax vaccine, and yet pretty much everyone who went over for the war had to get it. (at least I did)

Why on earth should they be giving people libido inhibiting drugs? What duty does having sex inhibit the accomplishment of? All this engineering people want to do with others' bodies is really creeping me out.

 

[mxyzptlk]

nothing really, I just wanted to rhyme duty with booty.

 

[kage69]

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.

That actually sounds like a great solution to the question. I don't think mandated BC like Depo is a big deal seeing as we already hold mandated health care standards for our enlisted, this would be no different. I especially like the notion of duty transfer during the later trimesters, this would automatically allow for female enlisted to return home to give birth (with their families) if they are stationed overseas. :thumbsup:

Most women who enlist aren't there to have kids, they know what's in store for them and carrying a rucksack and a weapon is hard enough. There are easier ways to snag unwitting husbands and breadwinners.

 

[LumbergTech]

no fucking way

they choose to serve our country and you're going to try to enforce a sexist policy on them?

give me a break

I don't see how anyone with an ounce of respect for service people could possibly support this

defend our freedom so we can take away yours?

 

[Jiggz]

We should have listened to Pelosi when she "sausaged" like $200M for BC in the Spendulous Bill!

 

[JSt0rm]

I think we should make them all octomoms and raise the children to be super soldiers. ZIng! /out

 

[lupi]

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.

If you don't want to be involved in religion the feel free to skip it, just try to not look like such an idiot when going after it.

 

[biostud]

Don't they have a husband who can look after the baby, just as it's possible the other way round?