PDA

View Full Version : US Army General: Court martial for single/married soldiers who get pregnant




Liberty Star
12-20-2009, 01:23 PM
This seemingly anti procreation policy is bound to draw fire from famous pro family values evangelicals like Huckabee, Palin others, possibly even from Bush:


Sunday, 20 December 2009

General defends court martial for pregnant soldiers

A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.

It is current army policy to send pregnant soldiers home, but Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo told the BBC he was losing people with critical skills.

That was why the added deterrent of a possible court martial was needed, he said.

The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.

It is the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm


How would GOP at large would react to this new policy?

TCE
12-20-2009, 01:25 PM
This seemingly anti procreation policy is bound to draw fire from famous pro family values evangelicals like Huckabee, Palin others, possibly even from Bush:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm


How would GOP at large would react to this new policy?

I would suspect poorly, since that would promote abortions. However, at the same time, Neo-Cons are always willing to listen to their generals, so who knows.

Liberty Star
12-20-2009, 01:28 PM
I would suspect poorly, since that would promote abortions. However, at the same time, Neo-Cons are always willing to listen to their generals, so who knows.

Choosing between maintaing force for killing of born Iraqis vs killing of unborn or almost born babies, tough dilemma for pro war wing of evangelicals and GOPers.

squarepusher
12-20-2009, 01:29 PM
wow, basically this is discriminatory against women, since men could never get preggo (that we know of)?

Liberty Star
12-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Didn't think from discriminatory angle till you brought this up, interesting point.
On related note, could this policy encourage spread of homosexuality as that would carry no pregnancy risk?

Brooklyn Red Leg
12-20-2009, 01:37 PM
On related note, could this policy encourage spread of homosexuality as that would carry no pregnancy risk?

Actually, it will probably lead to more women/men in the Army having anal sex than necessarily homosexual sex. That has its own list of problems if there isn't extreme care taken for personal hygiene. The Law of Unintended Consequences will strike again.

Dunedain
12-20-2009, 01:47 PM
Women and the military don't mix for so many reasons. The last thread was about women getting raped in the military.

angelatc
12-20-2009, 01:51 PM
This seemingly anti procreation policy is bound to draw fire from famous pro family values evangelicals like Huckabee, Palin others, possibly even from Bush:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm


How would GOP at large would react to this new policy?

This policy will fail in no time flat, because our military is too politically correct.

Bodhi
12-20-2009, 01:54 PM
I see the problem that he is trying to address which is women getting pregnant so that they do not have to deploy, but giving someone a court martial is not the answer.

The answer is to not fight unjust, endless, unwinnable wars that soldiers (both male and female) do not want to be a part of.

legion
12-20-2009, 02:04 PM
I agree with the General. The pregnancies are intentional. There is no excuse these days for having an unexpected child, except for poor and misleading sex education.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/15/sex.report/

"Most sexually active unmarried young adults believe pregnancy should be planned, but about half do not use contraception regularly, according to a study published Tuesday."

There's no excuse for not using a condom every time. They are cheap and easily available.

There is also no excuse for women not using birth control concurrently with condom usage. Especially with options like NuvaRing where you don't even have to remember to do it daily.

Liberty Star
12-20-2009, 03:04 PM
The pregnancies are intentional.

And very much in line with world/familial stance of GOP's pro interventinist base.

angelatc
12-20-2009, 03:49 PM
IThe answer is to not fight unjust, endless, unwinnable wars that soldiers (both male and female) do not want to be a part of.

That has very little do to with anything in an all volunteer force, especially at this late date.

Bodhi
12-20-2009, 03:59 PM
That has very little do to with anything in an all volunteer force, especially at this late date.

Actually it has a lot to do with it. I speak from experience. I was a sergeant in the Army and I dealt with my fair share of females looking for ways not to be deployed to a BS war, and for them getting pregnant was on the table.

kathy88
12-20-2009, 04:15 PM
Women and the military don't mix for so many reasons. The last thread was about women getting raped in the military.

So do the ones who were raped and then become pregnant as a result also get court-martialed? This is rediculous.

kathy88
12-20-2009, 04:17 PM
I agree with the General. The pregnancies are intentional. There is no excuse these days for having an unexpected child, except for poor and misleading sex education.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/15/sex.report/

"Most sexually active unmarried young adults believe pregnancy should be planned, but about half do not use contraception regularly, according to a study published Tuesday."

There's no excuse for not using a condom every time. They are cheap and easily available.

There is also no excuse for women not using birth control concurrently with condom usage. Especially with options like NuvaRing where you don't even have to remember to do it daily.



Oh Bullshit. I got pregnant with number one on the pill, nuber two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three was a diapraghm. Four was planned :) And nuvaring and all those other hormones like the pill are dangerous for women, cause strokes, heart attacks, blood clots and mood swings. I say all the men should be forced to have vasectomies. Now let's hear the MEN scream. Fucking double standard. I can't name ONE woman who ever got pregnant alone.

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Didn't think from discriminatory angle till you brought this up, interesting point.
On related note, could this policy encourage spread of homosexuality as that would carry no pregnancy risk?

Female homosexuality, not male homosexuality. More specifically, it would encourage females to become chaste.

The likely position of most Republicans would be "no comment". Or, since they probably won't be asked about it, there will be no comment, since they won't volunteer to talk about it.

Mini-Me
12-20-2009, 04:23 PM
Oh Bullshit. I got pregnant with number one on the pill, nuber two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three was a diapraghm. Four was planned :) And nuvaring and all those other hormones like the pill are dangerous for women, cause strokes, heart attacks, blood clots and mood swings. I say all the men should be forced to have vasectomies. Now let's hear the MEN scream. Fucking double standard. I can't name ONE woman who ever got pregnant alone.

You know, given the way policy-makers are thinking today about population control, you probably shouldn't have said the "forced vasectomy" thing out loud. They just might grant your wish. :eek:

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:25 PM
So do the ones who were raped and then become pregnant as a result also get court-martialed? This is rediculous.

That's unlikely. I think there would be an increase in the number of pregnant women who claim to have been raped.

kathy88
12-20-2009, 04:26 PM
You know, given the way policy-makers are thinking today about population control, you probably shouldn't have said the "forced vasectomy" thing out loud. They just might grant your wish. :eek:


Can I pick the first ten? 8 of them would be from this board. ;)

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:27 PM
Women get pregnant. Men don't. I can't name ONE man who ever got pregnant.


Oh Bullshit. I got pregnant with number one on the pill, nuber two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three was a diapraghm. Four was planned :) And nuvaring and all those other hormones like the pill are dangerous for women, cause strokes, heart attacks, blood clots and mood swings. I say all the men should be forced to have vasectomies. Now let's hear the MEN scream. Fucking double standard. I can't name ONE woman who ever got pregnant alone.

Met Income
12-20-2009, 04:28 PM
Women get pregnant. Men don't. I can't name ONE man who ever got pregnant.

Oh come on.

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:30 PM
This policy will fail in no time flat, because our military is too politically correct.

That is the likely outcome.

kathy88
12-20-2009, 04:31 PM
This is total bullshit. The condom breaks, the birth control is ineffective, BOTH parties decide to do it without and SHE gets a court martial. You don't see amything wrong with that, PArocks?

djinwa
12-20-2009, 04:33 PM
What's wrong with forcing vasectomies? As long as we are forced to take care of the kids of stupid parents, I don't see a problem with it.

Someday we'll need to do the following. At age 12, collect semen from all boys, then vasectomize them. Then they can breed like rabbits. When they've shown the ability to pay for a child, they can have some semen to impregnate the lady of their choice.

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:33 PM
Oh come on.

My statement is true. The sun rises in the East, sets in the West. Water is wet. I got more of these.

Mini-Me
12-20-2009, 04:34 PM
Can I pick the first ten? 8 of them would be from this board. ;)

Ouch, eight from this board? Considering the neocons and socialists have us outnumbered already, you must really like a challenge. Might I suggest choosing the remaining two VERY wisely? ;)

Seriously though, I was halfway serious about my last post. Don't tempt them.


What's wrong with forcing vasectomies? As long as we are forced to take care of the kids of stupid parents, I don't see a problem with it.

Someday we'll need to do the following. At age 12, collect semen from all boys, then vasectomize them. Then they can breed like rabbits. When they've shown the ability to pay for a child, they can have some semen to impregnate the lady of their choice.

<head asplode!> Jesus Christ, are you on the right board...? I HOPE you're joking.

Met Income
12-20-2009, 04:34 PM
My statement is true. The sun rises in the East, sets in the West. Water is wet. I got more of these.

Right. But you understood her point.

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:43 PM
This is total bullshit. The condom breaks, the birth control is ineffective, BOTH parties decide to do it without and SHE gets a court martial. You don't see amything wrong with that, PArocks?

Nope, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Going into the sex act, the female always knows that she's the one who could get pregnant. The male always knows that he cannot.

The female also knows that she can avoid getting pregnant by avoiding consensual sex.

If there is a trouble here, it's with women who signed up for the military, knowing that they could get out of active duty by getting pregnant. Changing the terms of the deal midstream could be seen as unfair. It's very likely that the woman wouldn't have signed up for the military if there wasn't an easy method to get out it.

Perhaps it should be a policy for new recruits, rather than imposed on those who are already in the military.

kathy88
12-20-2009, 04:51 PM
Nope, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Going into the sex act, the female always knows that she's the one who could get pregnant. The male always knows that he cannot.

The female also knows that she can avoid getting pregnant by avoiding consensual sex.

If there is a trouble here, it's with women who signed up for the military, knowing that they could get out of active duty by getting pregnant. Changing the terms of the deal midstream could be seen as unfair. It's very likely that the woman wouldn't have signed up for the military if there wasn't an easy method to get out it.

Perhaps it should be a policy for new recruits, rather than imposed on those who are already in the military.


So you don't find this the LEAST bit discriminatory?

parocks
12-20-2009, 04:56 PM
Right. But you understood her point.

I think her point was that she didn't like nature. Didn't like the way the world works.
So, in order to fuck with nature, or the consequences of nature, big government intervention and a coercive anti Liberty government solution is desired by her.

Because I like Liberty, I am against that.

Her idea, forced vasectomies, is what happens when you reach out to antiwar Democrats for support.

You go to a message board with socons, a message board with neocons, a message board with regular Republicans, regular Conservatives, the Republican "base" and you will see NO support for forced vasectomies.

But, somehow, we have people supporting forced vasectomies here on a website dedicated to Liberty, dedicated to Ron Paul, who believes in Limited Goverment more than any other well-known politician.

kathy88
12-20-2009, 05:01 PM
I think her point was that she didn't like nature. Didn't like the way the world works.
So, in order to fuck with nature, or the consequences of nature, big government intervention and a coercive anti Liberty government solution is desired by her.

Because I like Liberty, I am against that.

Her idea, forced vasectomies, is what happens when you reach out to antiwar Democrats for support.

You go to a message board with socons, a message board with neocons, a message board with regular Republicans, regular Conservatives, the Republican "base" and you will see NO support for forced vasectomies.

But, somehow, we have people supporting forced vasectomies here on a website dedicated to Liberty, dedicated to Ron Paul, who believes in Limited Goverment more than any other well-known politician.



I don't SERIOUSLY support forced vasectomies, eejit. My point is that MEN are making decisions regarding the court martialling of women for getting pregnant. What if the tables were turned, was my point. You've been on these forums for a while, you should know that I wasn't serious. There are still 8 from this board I would recommend, though. Wait, make that 9 :)

parocks
12-20-2009, 05:03 PM
I believe in Limited Government. So does Ron Paul. Nature is discriminatory.
Typically, anti Discrimination laws consist of the Government forcing people to do things they don't want to do. Anti Discrimination laws by definition take Liberty away. I am in favor of Liberty. I am against the goverment forcing people to do stuff.

Where does Ron Paul stand on forced vasectomies? He probably hasn't weighed in on it, but I'm certain he's against it.



So you don't find this the LEAST bit discriminatory?

kathy88
12-20-2009, 05:14 PM
You can't be that dense? I was referring to court martialing someone for getting pregnant. NOT FING VASECTOMIES. It was a JOKE. HELLO.

parocks
12-20-2009, 05:34 PM
Someone else took the forced vasectomies idea seriously. You don't sound loony otherwise.

The dude proposing or setting the policy is the employer. So, instead of saying that men are making this policy, more accurately, it's an employer, a special type of employer, but an employer nonetheless. Would it've been better if the person making the announcement or proposal was a woman?

Back in the day, women weren't even in the military. I'm sure there were debates about the pros and cons of women in the military, women in combat, women in support positions in combat areas, etc etc. I don't know if women's ability to get pregnant was discussed.

In this particular instance, the tables can't be turned. It's nature.

I'm really against the taking of Liberty, and I'm also against fucking with Nature.

You might not be serious about fucking with Nature, fucking with men to achieve desired outcomes, but others in the world are. There are anti Testosterone social engineers out there.



I don't SERIOUSLY support forced vasectomies, eejit. My point is that MEN are making decisions regarding the court martialling of women for getting pregnant. What if the tables were turned, was my point. You've been on these forums for a while, you should know that I wasn't serious. There are still 8 from this board I would recommend, though. Wait, make that 9 :)

Met Income
12-20-2009, 05:58 PM
Nope, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Going into the sex act, the female always knows that she's the one who could get pregnant. The male always knows that he cannot.

The female also knows that she can avoid getting pregnant by avoiding consensual sex.

If there is a trouble here, it's with women who signed up for the military, knowing that they could get out of active duty by getting pregnant. Changing the terms of the deal midstream could be seen as unfair. It's very likely that the woman wouldn't have signed up for the military if there wasn't an easy method to get out it.

Perhaps it should be a policy for new recruits, rather than imposed on those who are already in the military.

If it's wrong for someone in the military to get pregnant, blame has to be allocated proportionally. It's 50% the woman's fault, 50% the man's fault.

parocks
12-20-2009, 06:15 PM
If it's wrong for someone in the military to get pregnant, blame has to be allocated proportionally. It's 50% the woman's fault, 50% the man's fault.

Aside from the fact that there's no reason at all to think that blame should be allocated proportionately, how would you suggest that the proportionate blame system might work?

Met Income
12-20-2009, 06:21 PM
Aside from the fact that there's no reason at all to think that blame should be allocated proportionately, how would you suggest that the proportionate blame system might work?

Assuming both are in the military, give them both the same punishment.

parocks
12-20-2009, 06:24 PM
Assuming both are in the military, give them both the same punishment.

Do you think that you're making a safe assumption?

Met Income
12-20-2009, 06:28 PM
Do you think that you're making a safe assumption?

Of course, that would have to be confirmed.

MelissaWV
12-20-2009, 06:28 PM
Just to put us back on the right path...


Sunday, 20 December 2009

General defends court martial for pregnant soldiers

A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.

It is current army policy to send pregnant soldiers home, but Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo told the BBC he was losing people with critical skills.

That was why the added deterrent of a possible court martial was needed, he said.

The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.

It is the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.

So, it seems that about half the posters didn't actually read the OP. I'm not shocked.


Nope, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Going into the sex act, the female always knows that she's the one who could get pregnant. The male always knows that he cannot.

The female also knows that she can avoid getting pregnant by avoiding consensual sex.

If there is a trouble here, it's with women who signed up for the military, knowing that they could get out of active duty by getting pregnant. Changing the terms of the deal midstream could be seen as unfair. It's very likely that the woman wouldn't have signed up for the military if there wasn't an easy method to get out it.

Perhaps it should be a policy for new recruits, rather than imposed on those who are already in the military.

THAT one gave me a giggle. If she has non-consensual sex, of course, she can't get pregnant. Every female knows this, too, right? Um. :rolleyes:

By the way, the "condoms are readily available" thing isn't necessarily true of the situation being described. I'm not sure that every overseas base has huge numbers of condoms for the soldiers to nab.

Now, if the military were really that serious about this, they could make a birth control shot part of the deal for women deploying. It would obviously have to be something they knew about ahead of time, and agreed to, as it would affect their life once they got home, too. Things like "the pill" and NuvaRing are the sorts of things guys tend to think come without complications, like an aspirin. Actually, the risk of stroke, heart attack, blood clots, and general hormonal complications... it's nothing to sneeze at, folks.

Ultimately the woman IS going to be the one carrying the baby, and bearing the brunt of the physical/emotional scars if there's an unplanned pregnancy (especially if it also leads to court marshall). That's nature, and our court system in its infinite wisdom shifts things by putting the brunt of the financial burden on the man (if it can catch him). The whole thing is twisted beyond belief.

parocks
12-20-2009, 06:34 PM
Just to put us back on the right path...



So, it seems that about half the posters didn't actually read the OP. I'm not shocked.



THAT one gave me a giggle. If she has non-consensual sex, of course, she can't get pregnant. Every female knows this, too, right? Um. :rolleyes:

By the way, the "condoms are readily available" thing isn't necessarily true of the situation being described. I'm not sure that every overseas base has huge numbers of condoms for the soldiers to nab.

Now, if the military were really that serious about this, they could make a birth control shot part of the deal for women deploying. It would obviously have to be something they knew about ahead of time, and agreed to, as it would affect their life once they got home, too. Things like "the pill" and NuvaRing are the sorts of things guys tend to think come without complications, like an aspirin. Actually, the risk of stroke, heart attack, blood clots, and general hormonal complications... it's nothing to sneeze at, folks.

Ultimately the woman IS going to be the one carrying the baby, and bearing the brunt of the physical/emotional scars if there's an unplanned pregnancy (especially if it also leads to court marshall). That's nature, and our court system in its infinite wisdom shifts things by putting the brunt of the financial burden on the man (if it can catch him). The whole thing is twisted beyond belief.

The consensual vs non-consensual deals with the rape issue. If a female soldier has non-consensual sex (ie, gets raped) then gets pregnant, it wouldn't support her court martial. A female can avoid consensual sex, but she can't avoid non-consensual sex.

I don't support forcing females to take birth control shots. I don't support how the military currently forces soldiers to take a whole bunch of shots.

MelissaWV
12-20-2009, 06:38 PM
The consensual vs non-consensual deals with the rape issue. If a female soldier has non-consensual sex (ie, gets raped) then gets pregnant, it wouldn't support her court martial. A female can avoid consensual sex, but she can't avoid non-consensual sex.

The way you worded it was what made me giggle. You can avoid nonconsensual pregnancy to nearly the same extent as you can avoid consensual, at least insofar as many women are going to be on the same birth control. If you're on the pill, it does not descriminate. If you have an implanted device, or a shot, it also does not descriminate. In addition, a lot of rape procedures (if the woman reports it right away, or has access to it) allow for the introduction of a "morning after" pill to attempt to dislodge the pregnancy. The only real thing that can't be helped is condom use.

However, for the reasons above, some women will not be able to be on birth control and would rely almost exclusively on condoms, which are not 100% even when used. I doubt they travel well in desert climes.

Also, I didn't say "forcing." Women would be told that they are responsible for steady birth control of some form, to ensure they cannot become pregnant while on duty. This would safeguard (see above) against the potential nonconsensual sex pregnancies, too, though those are a rare case anyhow. If you were already sterile, or signed an affidavit stating you would take some form of approved birth control, you would then also be responsible for yourself. That's a totally different thing than just court-martial for getting pregnant.

parocks
12-20-2009, 06:40 PM
Of course, that would have to be confirmed.

What should the policy be when the father isn't in the military?

Met Income
12-20-2009, 06:41 PM
What should the policy be when the father isn't in the military?

There shouldn't be a policy to begin with.

parocks
12-20-2009, 06:49 PM
There shouldn't be a policy to begin with.

But you just said "blame has to be allocated proportionally". In reality, there will be many cases where the father is not in the military.

I'm not an expert on military matters, and truthfully, I think that court martial might be harsh. What's one less than court martial? Dishonorable discharge?

Met Income
12-20-2009, 06:55 PM
But you just said "blame has to be allocated proportionally". In reality, there will be many cases where the father is not in the military.

I'm not an expert on military matters, and truthfully, I think that court martial might be harsh. What's one less than court martial? Dishonorable discharge?

If a someone in the military is going to be punished for creating a pregnancy, all military personnel involved should be punished equally.

cindy25
12-21-2009, 04:18 AM
you are missing the hidden meaning.

they are so desperately short of troops that even pregnant women are needed. otherwise it would not matter to them.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 04:53 AM
Pregnant male soldiers.... hmmm...

Though you kinda have to admit - WHAAAA, WHAAAA, WHAAAA! - can kinda blow an ambush...

lets see... according to current fed law, I guess they have to provide a private foxhole for breastfeeding how many times a day?

-t

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 04:56 AM
If a someone in the military is going to be punished for creating a pregnancy, all military personnel involved should be punished equally.

Yeah - I can see this backfiring.... girl soldier: "Yes sir, I had a gang bang with company B. That's correct sir - ALL of them!"

:rolleyes:

-t

Met Income
12-21-2009, 05:55 AM
Yeah - I can see this backfiring.... girl soldier: "Yes sir, I had a gang bang with company B. That's correct sir - ALL of them!"

:rolleyes:

-t

Investigations would be have to be had. But you're right, this would be very messy - which is why it's a failed policy to begin with.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 10:36 AM
Investigations would be have to be had. But you're right, this would be very messy - which is why it's a failed policy to begin with.


CLEARLY, from a Justice perspective, if court-martialing a Female Soldier who gets pregnant is the "right" handling of the matter and if said Female Soldier is impregnated by a Male Soldier, the Male Soldier should LIKEWISE be court marshaled.

Otherwise, Houston, we have a problem.

By the by, if the Female Soldier is impregnated via RAPE by a Male Soldier, shall the Sneaky Bitch STILL be court-martialed? Y'know, on principle?

WOMEN IN COMBAT is a failed policy, and Military Brass is too CHICKENSHIT to own up to error. They would rather compound their mistakes than admit they were wrong. Being an Official means never having to say you're sorry.

Unless you get busted banging people other than yer spouse, then a simple SORRY is liable to catapult you to higher office.

Pericles
12-21-2009, 10:40 AM
CLEARLY, from a Justice perspective, if court marshaling a Female Soldier who gets pregnant is the "right" handling of the matter and if said Female Soldier is impregnated by a Male Soldier, the Male Soldier should LIKEWISE be court marshaled.

Otherwise, Houston, we have a problem.

By the by, if the Female Soldier is impregnated via RAPE by a Male Soldier, shall the Sneaky Bitch STILL be court marshaled? Y'know, on principle?

This might be why there are so many rapes - if she was raped, she did not disobey an order and can not be punished, and gets the deployment cut short with a return to the USA.

PS for the readership: It is a court martial (Martial as in military, not marshal as in gather). Perhaps my time in the Army makes me a Neanderthal, but I do make an effort to use the proper word in the proper place.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 10:44 AM
This might be why there are so many rapes - if she was raped, she did not disobey an order and can not be punished, and gets the deployment cut short with a return to the USA.

And so many women get "raped" in this country for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual assault... Rather - don't blame me - I need an out!

-t

Pericles
12-21-2009, 10:46 AM
But you just said "blame has to be allocated proportionally". In reality, there will be many cases where the father is not in the military.

I'm not an expert on military matters, and truthfully, I think that court martial might be harsh. What's one less than court martial? Dishonorable discharge?

In the Army, that is UCMJ Article 15 non judicial punishment. One of the consequences of a conviction at court martial, is that one is then a convicted felon, even if it was only a speeding ticket that started the whole thing.

virgil47
12-21-2009, 10:51 AM
This entire post is why women do not belong in military positions that require deployment. If they were only assigned to state side positions there would be no problem.
If women continue to demand to be jacks of all trades then they must bear the consequences. If they get pregnant in a war zone keep them there and have them give birth in the war zone. Don't want to give birth in a war zone then don't get pregnant.

HOLLYWOOD
12-21-2009, 10:59 AM
The US Military is a Communistic Marxist Statist society...


"You are hear to preserve Democracy, not practice it!"

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:02 AM
This might be why there are so many rapes - if she was raped, she did not disobey an order and can not be punished, and gets the deployment cut short with a return to the USA.

Run yer Rape stats against yer Pregnancy stats.

NOT to say there aren't women enlisting BECAUSE they know they can get around deployment, for I have met them. VERY happy those "veterans" are, going to college knowing they will not be saddled with Student Loan Debt. Shrewd move.

Military Brass is complicit. Is it a Russian Roulette kinda thing? You get yer college money when you get out, but you might serve as Sexual Outlet while yer in?

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:05 AM
This entire post is why women do not belong in military positions that require deployment. If they were only assigned to state side positions there would be no problem.
If women continue to demand to be jacks of all trades then they must bear the consequences. If they get pregnant in a war zone keep them there and have them give birth in the war zone. Don't want to give birth in a war zone then don't get pregnant.

I am on record as opposing Women In Combat.

That said, do you think RAPE by soldiers on "your" side is a reasonable consequence of wanting to go onto the battlefield?

Pericles
12-21-2009, 11:10 AM
Run yer Rape stats against yer Pregnancy stats.

NOT to say there aren't women enlisting BECAUSE they know they can get around deployment, for I have met them. VERY happy those "veterans" are, going to college knowing they will not be saddled with Student Loan Debt. Shrewd move.

Military Brass is complicit. Is it a Russian Roulette kinda thing? You get yer college money when you get out, but you might serve as Sexual Outlet while yer in?

The pregnancy stats tend to run 15% to 20% of the women become pregnant in one year.

The rape stats from that survey were 1 in 3, but no time frame specified - so we don't know if that was every year or over a 4 year enlistment or 30 year career.

The risk to a woman at any given time is different if she has a 1 in 3 probability of being raped in the next year, or at some time in her life.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:11 AM
And so many women get "raped" in this country for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual assault... Rather - don't blame me - I need an out!

-t


You fuckin' bet, MANY WOMEN ARE RAPED IN AMERICA for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Think, POWER.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 11:12 AM
Run yer Rape stats against yer Pregnancy stats.

NOT to say there aren't women enlisting BECAUSE they know they can get around deployment, for I have met them. VERY happy those "veterans" are, going to college knowing they will not be saddled with Student Loan Debt. Shrewd move.

Military Brass is complicit. Is it a Russian Roulette kinda thing? You get yer college money when you get out, but you might serve as Sexual Outlet while yer in?

Very interesting post....

-t

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 11:13 AM
You fuckin' bet, MANY WOMEN ARE RAPED IN AMERICA for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Think, POWER.

OK - that one went totally over your head....

-t

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:15 AM
The rape stats from that survey were 1 in 3, but no time frame specified - so we don't know if that was every year or over a 4 year enlistment or 30 year career.

I'm thinking that Military Record Keeping might lean toward Creative Accounting.




The risk to a woman at any given time is different if she has a 1 in 3 probability of being raped in the next year, or at some time in her life.


This should make us feel better?

The sad flip side of the coin is that many men on this board will have a wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister/aunt/friend raped. In America. To zero fanfare.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:17 AM
OK - that one went totally over your head....

-t

No, darlin', I got your point about trickery.

As per usual, you can only see the Guy Side.

Which candidates besides Ron Paul do you support?

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 11:24 AM
OK - that one went totally over your head....

-t

Lets rephrase this... I was "invited" to a police interrogation when I was a teen due to a girl that I I had previously dated accusing me of rape. Oddly, she didn't mention that we were dating to the cops. Nor did she mention the other 2 guys she accused of rape were also dating her at seperate times and none of us knew each other. The cops found this "odd". It turns out that she was about to come up for her confirmation into the Catholic church and felt that she needed to be "without sin"...

She was committed to a psychiatric hospital for this stunt.

I know of other cases where a girl cheated on her bf/husband and lied saying she was raped - but it was completely conceptual. Females sometimes lie about such matters to try to get out of trouble. Real or perceived.

-t

werdd
12-21-2009, 11:24 AM
Remind me of why we have women in the military.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 11:35 AM
No, darlin', I got your point about trickery.

As per usual, you can only see the Guy Side.

Which candidates besides Ron Paul do you support?

Rand Paul!
I've given money to Roscoe Bartlett
Voted as a second choice, as there was no one better for Kucinich and Nader.
Shiff

and you?

-t

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 11:38 AM
Remind me of why we have women in the military.

Feminazi's and political correctness.

-t

MelissaWV
12-21-2009, 11:41 AM
Remind me of why we have women in the military.

We should have women in the military if they can serve in the same manner and capacity as their male counterparts. The pregnancy issue is an easily-solvable one, and court-martial is not the way to do it.

The current problem is that the bar is twisted, bent, broken, lowered, etc., to allow people into the military. It's being done for men, too, with the excuse that the military is push-button, now, and people are so far from the action that they don't really need to be as prepared for battle in some roles. Poppycock. The basic requirements should be quantifiable and should not budge. If a woman can do all of those same things, and conduct herself with dignity and honor, she shouldn't be barred, imo.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Lets rephrase this...

Okay.



I was "invited" to a police interrogation when I was a teen due to a girl that I I had previously dated accusing me of rape. Oddly, she didn't mention that we were dating to the cops. Nor did she mention the other 2 guys she accused of rape were also dating her at seperate times and none of us knew each other. The cops found this "odd". It turns out that she was about to come up for her confirmation into the Catholic church and felt that she needed to be "without sin"...

She was committed to a psychiatric hospital for this stunt.

Catholicism is a Crazymaker, no doubt about it.

Lemme see if I have it straight, now that you've re-phrased it.

Because YOU had an Icky Incident -- wherein a schoolgirl's fantasy was exacerbated by Officials -- we shall go easy on Criminals and hard on Women?

'Cuz if that's the case, bein' as I have been ROYALLY screwed over by a Big Swinging Dick White Man, exacerbated by other Others, mainly Men -- including Officials, mainly Men.

Rather than arguing for, say, the elimination of firearms registration and other arms infringements, should I more logically jump on the bandwagon to sissify American Men, so I don't get hurt again?





I know of other cases where a girl cheated on her bf/husband and lied saying she was raped - but it was completely conceptual.


I trust you mean consensual. A girl cheated and then lied about it, are you kidding? PEOPLE WHO CHEAT, LIE. That's what it's all about.




Females sometimes lie about such matters to try to get out of trouble.
-t

And Guys don't, is that what yer implying?

Are you implying that Guys' Lies do not de-rail entire lives? I am living proof of the opposite, walking testimony to the Truth that among our Most Wealthy and Most Influential are Conscienceless Assholes who lie even when trouble ISN'T brewing. They are Liars. Lying is what they DO.

That is why Adulterers should be booted from Official Life.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:53 AM
We should have women in the military if they can serve in the same manner and capacity as their male counterparts. The pregnancy issue is an easily-solvable one, and court-martial is not the way to do it.


WOMEN AND MEN ARE DIFFERENT.

Women CANNOT function in the same manner and capacity as male counterparts.

They'd pee in their boots, fer starters.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 11:55 AM
Feminazi's and political correctness.

-t

Which is to say PANSY-ASSED MEN, yes?

They WERE, after all, In Charge as bullshit came down the pike.

HEY! Maybe Men SENT the bullshit down the pike -- y'know for reasons related to Lust, Power and Greed?

As Conspiracy Theories go, I could make a case.

MelissaWV
12-21-2009, 11:58 AM
WOMEN AND MEN ARE DIFFERENT.

Women CANNOT function in the same manner and capacity as male counterparts.

They'd pee in their boots, fer starters.

Some of the guys we have over there right now have been saved by their female counterparts. That's the exception, of course, but it seems to suggest that anyone who wants to try should be given a shot. If the standards are the same (being able to drag 200+ pounds x distance, for instance, simulating having to drag a fellow soldier)... I don't have a problem with it. It may well be that VERY few women qualify, or none, but so long as the standards are there, I wouldn't bitch about it, and anyone who did would be pretty silly to do so.

There are some damned tough ladies out there. Scary folks. I'm a huge fan of applications for things only mentioning the relevant skills. Peeing standing up shouldn't be one of them ;) And hell, I think some of those women CAN pee standing up...

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 12:03 PM
Some of the guys we have over there right now have been saved by their female counterparts. That's the exception, of course, but it seems to suggest that anyone who wants to try should be given a shot.

Democratic Feel Good Hogwash.

What about the single mother with the Angelina Jolie lips and the octuplets? Should she be given a shot at it? I mean, after she loses the baby fat?






There are some damned tough ladies out there.

Make a Commando Unit of 'em.

As Eddie Izzard suggests of Airborne Transvestites, what could be more surprising?

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL is not without judicial precedent.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Okay.

Catholicism is a Crazymaker, no doubt about it.

No shit Shurlock!


Lemme see if I have it straight, now that you've re-phrased it.

Because YOU had an Icky Incident -- wherein a schoolgirl's fantasy was exacerbated by Officials -- we shall go easy on Criminals and hard on Women?

NO!



I trust you mean consensual. A girl cheated and then lied about it, are you kidding? PEOPLE WHO CHEAT, LIE. That's what it's all about.

So you have extensive experinec in this area? I've heard there is this site called the Ashly Madison Agency that is just for cheating wives looking for something on the side.... ;)


And Guys don't, is that what yer implying?

NO

It sounds like it cuts both ways - and it does. No disagreement there. Sorry you have had icky experiences too.

-t

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Some of the guys we have over there right now have been saved by their female counterparts. That's the exception, of course...


Here at home, it is NOT the exception. Guys are REGULARLY saved by their Significant Others.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 12:13 PM
Cheapseats - why are you making me think it's "that time of month" - like time to hide the kitchen knives, sleep on the couch and lay out bubble wrap on the floor....

-t

werdd
12-21-2009, 12:13 PM
It's a complete joke we allow women in our military. In a real combat engagement, do you think any enemy is going to be deploying women? Hell no.

I mean i can understand having women as nurses or whatever... but saying that women can perform adequetely on the battlefield as compared to men is stupid.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Cheapseats - why are you making me think it's "that time of month" - like time to hide the kitchen knives, sleep on the couch and lay out bubble wrap on the floor....

Because you are a simple-minded, knee-jerk Sexist?

Menopausal. ALL the Baby Boom women, single largest American voting bloc, are Menopausal. I've said it before and, in the spirit of issuing fair warning, I'll say it again. Millions and millions of hot flashes are gonna put a whole new spin on firefight.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 12:19 PM
It's a complete joke we allow women in our military. In a real combat engagement, do you think any enemy is going to be deploying women? Hell no.


HELL YES! Russia has deployed them, and I'm pretty impressed with women in the Polish and Romanian military. Granted, generally they work out better as snipers and saboteurs.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 12:20 PM
Because you are a simple-minded, knee-jerk Sexist?

Menopausal. ALL the Baby Boom women, single largest American voting bloc, are Menopausal. I've said it before and, in the spirit of issuing fair warning, I'll say it again. Millions and millions of hot flashes are gonna put a whole new spin on firefight.

ROTGLMAO!

tangent dives for his fox hole!

-t

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 12:20 PM
Feminazi's and political correctness.

-t



Which is to say PANSY-ASSED MEN, yes?

They WERE, after all, In Charge as bullshit came down the pike.

HEY! Maybe Men SENT the bullshit down the pike -- y'know for reasons related to Lust, Power and Greed?

As Conspiracy Theories go, I could make a case.


Waiting for an answer here, Big Guy.

tangent4ronpaul
12-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Waiting for an answer here, Big Guy.

YAWN....

I can't even find the original post - if that was directed to me.

It also seems so "out there" I don't know where I would even begin to reply....

-t

MelissaWV
12-21-2009, 12:30 PM
Democratic Feel Good Hogwash.

What about the single mother with the Angelina Jolie lips and the octuplets? Should she be given a shot at it? I mean, after she loses the baby fat?







Make a Commando Unit of 'em.

As Eddie Izzard suggests of Airborne Transvestites, what could be more surprising?

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL is not without judicial precedent.

If Octo-mom wants to be in the military and can pass all the tests (physical, mental, etc.) then I do think she should get a shot, sure. I doubt sincerely she would pass either side of testing. I don't support the idea of a "Ladies' Unit" because it seems to smack of the old propoganda days where they had similar things... and recruited based on factors not remotely relevant to what they were recruiting for. If a woman can't actually hang around with the big boys, then she shouldn't be there. If a crime occurs, regardless of genders involved, I'd hope it would be investigated, etc.; these are best-case scenarios we're discussing.

The reality is that the bar never stays put. Octo-mom would probably be let in more for how she'd look in a uniform, and as a PR stunt. A Ladies' Fighting Force would end up doing more photo ops than actual fighting. Crimes that happen out there on the other side of the world don't get even the mediocre investigating that goes on here at home. Reality's a bitch, but in a perfect world, if you qualify for a job, you'd be in the running for it, regardless of gender, age, religion, height, weight, whatever... unless one of those things disqualifies you from the job (too short to reach the shelves!).

The part where I differ from the feel-good hogwash is that I think the bar should be set high and left there. I should be able to fire someone if they fail to meet that pre-arranged bar in the future, or re-assign them. These standards I'm talking about should be things that are easy and plain to demonstrate. No "if," "and," or "but."

Just one gal's $0.02 though.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 03:34 PM
ROTGLMAO!

tangent dives for his fox hole!

-t


And well you should. Y'all have NO IDEA what you're in for, if Menopausal Women mobilize.

Wanna know what lots o' Menopausal Women have on their hands?

1. axes to grind
2. time to spare

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 03:41 PM
If Octo-mom wants to be in the military and can pass all the tests (physical, mental, etc.) then I do think she should get a shot, sure. I doubt sincerely she would pass either side of testing.

Oh, you DOUBT it?

That you STILL equivocate with IF she can pass psychological testing speaks DIRECTLY to your indoctrination into Democratic Feel Good Hogwash.





I don't support the idea of a "Ladies' Unit" because it seems to smack of the old propoganda days where they had similar things... and recruited based on factors not remotely relevant to what they were recruiting for.


Speaks DIRECTLY to crummy Leadership.




If a woman can't actually hang around with the big boys, then she shouldn't be there.

Fiddle de dee.

I'll bet a Female Commando unit could execute LOTS of missions that guys couldn't pull off. Think, Special Ops.





The reality is that the bar never stays put.


Speaks DIRECTLY to Moral Relativism.





The part where I differ from the feel-good hogwash is that I think the bar should be set high and left there. I should be able to fire someone if they fail to meet that pre-arranged bar in the future, or re-assign them. These standards I'm talking about should be things that are easy and plain to demonstrate. No "if," "and," or "but."



Agree, stipulating that variable objectives/employments establish variable standards.

The United States Armed Forces, through and through, should be the cream of the crop, not the bottom of the barrel.

jrkotrla
12-21-2009, 04:12 PM
How is this bad? how is a court martial not the answer?

when you sign up for the military you make a commitment to the MILITARY to be ready to deploy 24/7 until the end of your commitment. Getting pregnant is violating your commitment. Yes, you should be court-martialed and dis-honorably discharged. If you want to have sex, fine, but use birth-control until your time in the military has expired.

these people have entered into this arrangement VOLUNTARILY. there is no "The state is killing babies" whargarble here.

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 04:28 PM
Can I pick the first ten? 8 of them would be from this board. ;)

Oh kiss my ass, what the fuck is this shit?

Hey, while we're at it why not give you a clitectomy.

There is NO PLACE in a "liberty movement" for the idea of coerced surgical procedures.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 04:51 PM
There is NO PLACE in a "liberty movement" for the idea of coerced surgical procedures.


But there is likewise NO PLACE in the Liberty Moovement for RAPE, right?

We don't need to equivocate like the Pope, right?

Zero Tolerance IS the Moral Imperative and Guiding Objective, right?

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 06:16 PM
But there is likewise NO PLACE in the Liberty Moovement for RAPE, right?

We don't need to equivocate like the Pope, right?

Zero Tolerance IS the Moral Imperative and Guiding Objective, right?

I have no idea what your disjointed, twattering, random thoughts are trying to say.

I don't think in stream of consciousness sound bites.

What the fuck does the pope have to do with rape that has to do with forced surgical sterilizations?

Met Income
12-21-2009, 06:19 PM
But there is likewise NO PLACE in the Liberty Moovement for RAPE, right?

We don't need to equivocate like the Pope, right?

Zero Tolerance IS the Moral Imperative and Guiding Objective, right?

Right. Rape is wrong. Force sterilization is wrong. Next?

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 06:20 PM
I have no idea what your disjointed, twattering, random thoughts are trying to say.

I don't think in stream of consciousness sound bites.

What the fuck does the pope have to do with rape that has to do with forced surgical sterilizations?

Ah, the sweet melodious tones of a guy who fears that DICKS, like vaginas and wombs, might go on the regulatory block.

Met Income
12-21-2009, 06:21 PM
Ah, the sweet melodious tones of a guy who fears that DICKS, like vaginas and wombs, might go on the regulatory block.

Well yeah, anyone should fear it - because it's immoral and unjust.

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 06:24 PM
Ah, the sweet melodious tones of a guy who fears that DICKS, like vaginas and wombs, might go on the regulatory block.

If that sort of attitude was reflected in racial overtones, the forum community would ostracize you harshly, and rightly so.

Forced surgical procedures against anybody, man or woman, is reprehensible.

Get over your genitalia, OK?

Liberty Star
12-21-2009, 06:30 PM
Didn't know this subject would turn into such "lively" battle over choices for genders.

How about we all agree that equal and free choice for both genders on matters of contraception - and in all other matters for that matter. Anyone disagrees with that?

armstrong
12-21-2009, 06:31 PM
YouTube - Yell Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYdHvYM6ao)

armstrong
12-21-2009, 06:37 PM
with all thats going on in the world - just had to yell

Liberty Star
12-21-2009, 06:44 PM
with all thats going on in the world - just had to yell

Little friendly fire once in while is inevitable.

Good video.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 06:49 PM
How about we all agree that equal and free choice for both genders on matters of contraception - and in all other matters for that matter. Anyone disagrees with that?

Works for me.

Abortion included.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 06:53 PM
Forced surgical procedures against anybody, man or woman, is reprehensible.


Quite agree.

So is Rape.

So is court-martial of a Female Soldier who "gets herself" pregnant but NOT of a Male Soldier who GETS a Female Soldier pregnant.

There are parallel threads. Sanctity of Weenies is not the only issue being debated.

torchbearer
12-21-2009, 06:56 PM
Quite agree.

So is Rape.

So is court-martial of a Female Soldier who "gets herself" pregnant but NOT of a Male Soldier who GETS a Female Soldier pregnant.

There are parallel threads. Sanctity of Weenies is not the only issue being debated.

i thought both parties get court-martialed. that is what i read in the msnbc article.

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 06:58 PM
Quite agree.

So is Rape.

So is court-martial of a Female Soldier who "gets herself" pregnant but NOT of a Male Soldier who GETS a Female Soldier pregnant.

There are parallel threads. Sanctity of Weenies is not the only issue being debated.

From the OP:


The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.

Liberty Star
12-21-2009, 07:01 PM
i thought both parties get court-martialed. that is what i read in the msnbc article.

Good point, BBC report above also says the same thing actually:


The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.

That seems pretty gender/marital status neutral punishment. That said, pregnacy itself has more direct effect for the female than the male party obviously.

cheapseats
12-21-2009, 07:04 PM
i thought both parties get court-martialed. that is what i read in the msnbc article.



From the OP:


Thank you, both. Early reports suggested otherwise.

Therefore, in Cases of the Untimely Pregnancies, we do not so much applaud as acknowledge that the Military intends to mete out wrongheadedness in an egalitarian fashion. Alrighty then, guess we're good to go.

'Cept for the Rape thing.

MelissaWV
12-21-2009, 07:05 PM
From the OP:

Yeah... I pointed that out pages ago... I don't think people listened lol. I somehow don't really think they will now, either :rolleyes:

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 07:05 PM
LOL at the UnFuck the World tee shirt.


YouTube - Yell Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYdHvYM6ao)

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 07:11 PM
Yeah... I pointed that out pages ago... I don't think people listened lol. I somehow don't really think they will now, either :rolleyes:

Prolly not...FFS, I didn't even come into this thread to argue about this new, goofy policy.

The only thing I was commenting on was that the concept of forced surgical sterilizations should never be tolerated, for anybody.

Somehow that transmogrified into me having a case of penis anxiety.

MelissaWV
12-21-2009, 07:12 PM
Prolly not...FFS, I didn't even come into this thread to argue about this new, goofy policy.

The only thing I was commenting on was that the concept of forced surgical sterilizations should never be tolerated, for anybody.

Somehow that transmogrified into me having a case of penis anxiety.


Well, they're always staring. Makes people anxious.