U.S. military defends pregnancy punishment in Iraq

Link

Quote :

The U.S. military commander in northern Iraq defended on Tuesday a new policy imposing strict penalties, including possible jail time, for troops who become pregnant or get other soldiers pregnant.

Making pregnancy illegal? Has China purchased the U.S. military?

Quote :

U.S. Central Command rules do not prohibit "sexual contact between consenting, single servicemembers."

Sex is okay, but pregnancy is not. Hmm...what's wrong with this scenario? Could it be the fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective? Also, are they going to discipline female servicemembers who get pregnant through non-consensual sex? And what if the father is not a fellow soldier? What if she's having an affair with an Iraqi? For that matter, what if a male soldier should get an Iraqi woman pregnant? Will he be punished for this?

Quote :

In a statement to ABC News, Cucolo said he would not resort to using the court martial for such cases.
"I see absolutely no circumstance where I would punish a female soldier by court martial for a violation ... I fully intend to handle these cases through lesser disciplinary action," he wrote, according to the ABC report.

Good to know, but still...since they're doing a drawdown of soldiers anyway, why don't they just make pregnant soldiers part of the drawdown?

I think what they're TRYING to do is stop soldiers having sexual relations with each other because having sex automatically gets you pregnant. It's just that getting pregnant is harder to hide.

Apart from anything else, even unprotected sex has no guarrantee of pregnancy.

If they want to stop people having sex in the army, just say so. And if they've already passed that law, why add an extra punishment for pregnancy?

Sigh.

Lady Anne wrote:

Making pregnancy illegal? Has China purchased the U.S. military?

Not China. Common sense.

Quote :

Sex is okay, but pregnancy is not.

Pretty much, yeah.

Quote :

Hmm...what's wrong with this scenario? Could it be the fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective?

Then that's just the risk one takes if they find they have time, inclination and ability to fuck in a combat zone.

Quote :

Also, are they going to discipline female servicemembers who get pregnant through non-consensual sex?

No, and anyone who tried to enact or enforce such a rule would be in deep shit.

Quote :

And what if the father is not a fellow soldier? What if she's having an affair with an Iraqi?

Then that's her problem. Although IIRC they're not supposed to get into that kind of contact with the locals. So yeah. This isn't "fucking = bad," this is "do not get pregnant."

Quote :

For that matter, what if a male soldier should get an Iraqi woman pregnant? Will he be punished for this?

See above. However, if relations are OK in the first place, probably not, since it has no effect on the unit's combat effectiveness.

Quote :

Good to know, but still...since they're doing a drawdown of soldiers anyway, why don't they just make pregnant soldiers part of the drawdown?

Because pregnant soldiers don't stick around in the first place. They go home. Pregnant soldiers don't deploy; they stay home. Pregnant sailors are even taken off of ships and flown back.

A drawdown doesn't mean it's over. It means that, as the forces are reduced, the remainder will have to do more with less until they're all gone. In that sort of scenario you can't give up anyone beyond what was already called for if at all possible. Therefore, getting knocked up in Iraq = a big no-no.

This is a touchy subject that the military's been dodging ever since women were brought into more career fields. Pregnancy has a severe impact on unit readiness and effectiveness. If a male soldier knocks up his wife, well that sucks for them, he's going downrange anyway. If a female soldier gets pregnant, her unit goes downrange without her.

Also, please note that with this policy, a male soldier who impregnates a female soldier will be held accountable as well. From a military perspective, this is just common sense.

Quote :

He said such punishment could, in the most serious case, include jail time. But soldiers violating the rule so far have received letters of reprimand.

An LoR for this is really a slap on the wrist. It might mean you lose a few points in the running for your next promotion. Maybe. If you don't have any other violations, it's no sweat. If you're a dirtbag with letters of counseling, other letters of reprimand, article 15s or an unfavorable information file, then yeah, it's gonna hurt. Otherwise, not really a big deal.

Penguin wrote:

Also, please note that with this policy, a male soldier who impregnates a female soldier will be held accountable as well. From a military perspective, this is just common sense.

Lol wut. Under this policy they'd be losing twice the soldiers they normally would.

Unless this guy is planning on throwing condoms around like they're new year's confetti, he'd better be prepared to lose soldiers. People aren't going to just stop having sex.

Bamshalam wrote:

Lol wut. Under this policy they'd be losing twice the soldiers they normally would.

No, they wouldn't. Pregnant soldiers already get shipped straight back, or at least, to a base far away from the combat zone. Male soldier gets the penalty but stays in Iraq until his time's up.

Basically, it's the same as before, with an incentive not to do it.

Quote :

Unless this guy is planning on throwing condoms around like they're new year's confetti, he'd better be prepared to lose soldiers. People aren't going to just stop having sex.

Military public health already does this. Also, Tricare = free birth control medication of your choice.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Unless this guy is planning on throwing condoms around like they're new year's confetti, he'd better be prepared to lose soldiers. People aren't going to just stop having sex.

Military public health already does this. Also, Tricare = free birth control medication of your choice.

So long as that's the case, I care significantly less.

Actually, I take that back: Are abortions available to women who get pregnant and don't want to stay that way?

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I think what they're TRYING to do is stop soldiers having sexual relations with each other because having sex automatically gets you pregnant. It's just that getting pregnant is harder to hide.

Apart from anything else, even unprotected sex has no guarrantee of pregnancy.

...what?

I don't get why this is such a big deal. They're in a war zone, they need all the manpower they can get, especially from women who do a lot of the mission critical functions that aren't directly combat related. Getting pregnant means you're losing technical expertise that knows the system.

The military can do what they want, especially in a war zone.

And it's not as though they don't tell the people that they're going to get deployed MONTHS before it happens. In all honest truth if you manage to get knocked up while in the middle of a battle you're either really stupid or trying hard. They give you condoms, birth control pills, and/or the shot. And yes, some women get pregnant just to get out of going to war.

Quote :

Actually, I take that back: Are abortions available to women who get pregnant and don't want to stay that way?

They get free boob jobs as long as they buy the implants. So I'm pretty sure that this is covered.

Why is this godawful?

People stationed in Iraq should not be putting themselves in a situation to endanger their unit, such as making them one soldier down. Say what you want about people having needs, but even I know better than to put myself in the situation of being possibly pregnant in fucking Iraq.

Rape is another matter entirely and is not a part of the above opinion.

My initial, knee-jerk reaction to this was some grumbling. But as almost everyone has pointed out, there is logic behind this and the men are being punished as well. So, not GA News.

Everything Penguin and Lapin said times 10.

Military to scrap pregnancy punishment

Lady Anne wrote:

Military to scrap pregnancy punishment

At this point, they kinda had to do that because the PR this was getting in the media was killing them.

Look, I know there's a lot more to sexual intercourse than just good sensations and an orgasm, but seriously... using your hand(s) instead of having sex with someone else would be so much easier and less potentially complicated in situations like this. If a couple of soldiers can find the time and (relative, I suppose) privacy to have sex, couldn't they just masturbate instead? No risk of pregnancy or STDs there.

Malganis wrote:

Look, I know there's a lot more to sexual intercourse than just good sensations and an orgasm, but seriously... using your hand(s) instead of having sex with someone else would be so much easier and less potentially complicated in situations like this. If a couple of soldiers can find the time and (relative, I suppose) privacy to have sex, couldn't they just masturbate instead? No risk of pregnancy or STDs there.

Well, when sex is readily available and both take (reasonably) the same amount of time and privacy, sex is the much better choice.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Military to scrap pregnancy punishment

At this point, they kinda had to do that because the PR this was getting in the media was killing them.

Wonderful. The clueless halfwits in the media get to tell the people who know what they're doing how do run a war.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Wonderful. The clueless halfwits in the media get to tell the people who know what they're doing how do run a war.

With the war in Afghanistan and the drawdown in Iraq deeply unpopular amongst the population (both conservative and liberal), yeah PR is kinda important.

God damn it anyway.

Malganis wrote:

Look, I know there's a lot more to sexual intercourse than just good sensations and an orgasm, but seriously... using your hand(s) instead of having sex with someone else would be so much easier and less potentially complicated in situations like this. If a couple of soldiers can find the time and (relative, I suppose) privacy to have sex, couldn't they just masturbate instead? No risk of pregnancy or STDs there.

"Combat Jack." Yeah. Also, see Bamshalam's point about masturbation vs. sex.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Wonderful. The clueless halfwits in the media get to tell the people who know what they're doing how do run a war.

With the war in Afghanistan and the drawdown in Iraq deeply unpopular amongst the population (both conservative and liberal), yeah PR is kinda important.

This may seem like a silly question, but I feel it must be asked: Why? Why should our military care about public relations? Unlike a business they shouldn't have to worry about what the public thinks of them, because it won't really affect anything accept maybe causing some protests. The public can't choose to not fund the military, therefore if the military thinks that a given policy is going to be the best for the troops then they really shouldn't care what the public thinks about.

Because, irritating as it is, and as much as PR should ideally never get in the way of winning a war, we live in a society where public opinion has a direct bearing on war.

You see, politicians send us off to war.

If people are angry at politicians, the politicians will try to stop making their base angry. This means hanging the military out to dry, they'll do it. Just look at all the finger-pointing over Vietnam. And a base that doesn't understand the sacrifices necessary in war will not always be fair. An uninformed base will want to crucify someone over telling females that they can't get pregnant or saying that they have to perform to certain standards and will be whipped up into righteous fury over anything that wouldn't fly in the civilian world but must happen in the military world.

So, without good PR, a first world nation cannot win a war. Also, I'm not entirely shoure I'm coherent so I'll try this again tomorrow./

^ While reading this post, I could faintly hear the 'You can't handle the truth' speech.

Psy-4 wrote:

^ While reading this post, I could faintly hear the 'You can't handle the truth' speech.

Pretty much. The downside of the information age is that the "fog of war", while still prevalent, is less dense than it was even in Vietnam.

Unless that's a different use of "fog of war" than I'm used to, less fog of war is a good thing. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Psy-4 wrote:

^ While reading this post, I could faintly hear the 'You can't handle the truth' speech.

YOU WANT THE POON? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE POON!