Just Asking

Doesn’t the order say if the woman becomes pregnant or if the man impregnates her they’ll be court-martialed?
.
If this is the case, even if the two soliders went to the general to say they were going to get an abortion they would still be court-martialed because they got her pregnant, right? So your question, as worded, is not really a relevant question at all. A better question would be, “Will couples in the military choose to get an abortion instead of choosing to keep a baby in an effort to avoid court-martial by hiding the pregnancy?”
.
The question you ask is so ridiculous and offensive – why not just assume that the general is encouraging soldiers to consider a gay lifestyle?

Four women and three male soldiers have already been reprimanded for this. None of them are being court-martialed or will spend any time in a military jail though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34524436/ns/us_news-military

” .. male troops who impregnate another soldier, although that’s obviously harder to prove ..”

Perhaps not for many. But advances in techniques make it not so hard to prove/match who the particular ‘impregnator’ was. If it is not possible now, then soon.

If the product is criminal – shouldn’t we then criminalize the cause and process – that is, sex among the troops? Afterall, we don’t stop short when it comes to terrorist acts: We pursue the funders and symphathizers and schools and language and religion and even doubt anyone named “Hussein”.

Then should we condone accusations of rape brought up by the civilians in occupied lands against our troops?

Thanks, Amy. Will Gen. Cucolo make women raise their babies in prison? Even if the rule stands I doubt civilian custody laws can be overturned by an out-of-control general. He said pregnancies from rape won’t be punished, but how in the hell is he going to determine that? Can / will higher generals, or even Obama as C-in-C, countermand him or even court-martial him for inappropriate behavior? Anything you’ve heard here?
.
okay, done with that. Are you going to post more stuff before the holiday? If not, then I’ll go ahead and wish you a merry Christmas, Amy, and enjoy the holiday foods and gifts.

” .. two soliders went to the general to say they were going to get an abortion ..”
The hussle!
The beleaguered general may wonder what happened to wire coathangers?

Read this article if you like. It might clear up some of your questions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34524436/ns/us_news-military
No one is going to jail or being court martialed.

“Does that mean that if two unmarried soldiers have sex and the woman becomes pregnant, the general would want her to get an abortion?”
.
Amy-You are not seriously asking this question are you? The order is issued to prevent pregnancies not terminate them.
.
The more relevant question you should be asking is why not over turn don’t ask don’t tell instead.

…thanks, I didn’t see this. So he’s standing down a little. Media pressure ain’t so bad after all.

I’m guessing that RU-486 just became one of the highly-desired items in many of those deployment care packages since, apparently, the condoms were not.

Come on, Amy Sullivan.

A more evenhanded discussion of this overall issue from the ground via FP’s Ricks:

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/22/knocked_up_and_deployed_an_army_captains_view

People have time to get it on during a war?

“People have time to get it on during a war?”
.
They sure do.

Does that mean that if two unmarried soldiers have sex and the woman becomes pregnant, the general would want her to get an abortion? And how would that work, given that military health plans don’t cover abortion procedures?

Simple. The female soldier accuses the male soldier of rape. Thus she avoids both a court martial for becoming pregnant and she gets to have an abortion because it was caused by rape.

What? This isn’t a “win-win”?

My question is:
How is issuing a policy like this even worth it? Its bound to drum up criticism and to inspire questions like the one you asked.
per the article: “Of the 22,000 people under Cucolo’s command, 1,682 are women.”
I mean, how many people on active duty become pregnant? is it statistically significant?

AS:
Does that mean that if two unmarried soldiers have sex and the woman becomes pregnant, the general would want her to get an abortion? And how would that work, given that military health plans don’t cover abortion procedures?
.
Ooh, Amy, you’re so clever. Only you’re not…

its an issue deserving of discussion, but ‘dont ask dont tell’ isn’t relevant at all to this discussion….

…an out-of-control general…court-martial[ed]…for inappropriate behavior…
Are we discussing the same issue here? Certainly, you can’t be referring to Cucolo? Can you? Am I to believe that you are entirely kosher with combat soldiers fraternizing with one another during a tour of duty in a war-torn country, subsequently getting pregnant, which subsequently allows medical/maternity leave for over nine months, abandoning their comrades while simultaneously getting their own loop-hole out of doing their duty? To frown upon and reprimand such conduct is “out of control” and “court-martial” worthy, Decon? Really?

Wow. Same-sex sex will get you discharged, opposite- sex sex will get you reprimanded. You’re a soldier, get used to it.

” .. how many people on active duty become pregnant? is it statistically significant? ..”

1,682 women of sexually-active age group – and none getting pregnant and presumably not officially sworn to abstinence?
If that is so by official policy then should these officials be accused of something – say cruelty to animals, I mean, people?

Can’t be too many Catholics in the military. They don’t believe in killing another human being, right?

” .. sex will get you reprimanded ..”

If you are caught at it or if there is evidence of its commission.
Caveat: Thou shalt sin – but thou shalt not be caught.

The general is a klutz, but he is right. He went over the line, but he is right. He is too focused on his mission to know when he is acting the fool, but he is right. The policy contains no religious content, at which I would urge hanging the general, and contains no mention of discharged homos for being homo and who also contribute, but anyway, soldiers, war zones are not the place to get pregnant. It causes serious hinderances to the mission. Have sex. But do it with some common sense. Ever heard of birth control? Does the army teach that? Another area that the general falls a little short of the mark.

That seems very extreme, especially if soldiers weren’t told up-front that they had to abstain/not get caught.

Without a draft, you’d think the brass’d want a bigger pool of future soldiers.

Is there point lurking somewhere amid that frivolous mockery?

Nope, it’s just funny that outside of the military’s main job – to kill the enemy – they don’t want you to procreate either.

And you see no relation between the two? If your primary role is to pick up your weapon, defend yourself and your comrades, enter into hostile and entirely stressful situations, eliminate your enemy, etc, etc, it likely behooves you not to be pregnant while doing such, and of course, the Army can’t simply be sending you home because you got pregnant on the battlefield, would that be fair to the thousands of other soldiers who likely would rather be home, but are sworn to do their duty?

just a small comment to some of the comments poo-pooing on the overall post; yeah, it does stretch a little bit (especially regarding healthcare), but the point about abortions seems valid:
would you rather be court martialed or have an abortion?

And where might one go in Iraq to get this abortion, other than the military medical centers, where of course your pregnancy will become known? The options aren’t court-martial or abortion, the options are court-martial or don’t get pregnant.

Can I just say that I’m tremendously relieved our media is concerned with this particular aspect of our military behemoth. I mean, really, waging mulitple wars, expending god knows how much lucre and blood in the quicksands of empire, that is clearly not as sexy as, um, well, sex in the sand.

“Because others won’t be far behind… ”

Bet they are.

…yep, exiled, really. If I were his superior I’d countermand the order at once and discipline him. Enough said.

So, what would you recommend doing about battlefield pregnancies? Just send the individuals home? And their comrades, what are they to think? Forget Section 8, just find someone to impregnate, sure ticket home…

If the Pope was the general, there would be no birth control!

…sorry exiled, we just see this differently. I know that military and civilian personal rules /conduct are different, but I don’t think it’s fair to punish women for this. Go ahead and try treating women this way (pregnant or not) anywhere else but in the service. Good luck, seriously. You can argue strategy and tactics all night but this is something we won’t agree on.

There’s something wrong with this picture, this is the second completely irrelevant reference to Catholicism on this thread. Is this a daily American activity, mocking Catholics simply for the sake of it? So much for tolerance, sensitivity, and inclusion. Progressives, beware the hypocrites among you…

I suppose that is a valid perspective. However, I must say, the only solution then is to not allow women on the battlefield. It may sound harsh, but if they want this equal treatment and opportunity, including going to fight for their country, then they cannot be given special privileges of being able to abandon their post for getting pregnant in a combat zone. As you said, there is a vast difference between military and civilian acceptable conduct. The priority will always be the mission, not the individuals. There is no individuality in war, the entire structure is intended to break soldiers of their independence and operate exclusively for the unit; fornication and fraternization in the war-zone hardly comports to such. There must be a choice, Decon, either exclude women altogether or hold them to the same standards as the men. You don’t get a pass from war based on your personal conduct, unless of course it is in the form of a misconduct reprimand, court-martial, or discharge. I know, I know, I’m a heartlessly callous misogynist.

Exiled, you don’t already know? Mocking a majority religion, like Catholicism- always acceptable, even in the mainstream. You can even mock someone for being a Catholic, like grollican did the other day. Just don’t go mocking a minority religion, especially Islam. God help you if you do that.
.
Just so you know the rules!
.
Note- I am not Catholic

…exiled, replace “Catholics” with “women” in your 15.3 comment and read it back out loud (or to any women in your life), especially your part about “tolerance, sensitivity, and inclusion.” Then there’s this – http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/four-dem-senators-sign-letter-opposing-courts-martial-for-pregnancy-policy.php

There’s something wrong with this picture, this is the second completely irrelevant reference to women on this thread. Is this a daily American activity, mocking women simply for the sake of it? So much for tolerance, sensitivity, and inclusion. Progressives, beware the hypocrites among you…
~
Um, point…?

…I’m confused now. Do you want women to have “equal treatment and opportunity” and to “hold them to the same standards as the men” – or not? Because if understand, you want to keep them off the battlefield if they get knocked up (and many army women don’t serve on the frontlines)… AND back in civilian-land you want to force them to carry all pregnancies to term, correct? Neither of us can get pregnant but they can, so it’s their problem, right?

…I agree, exiled. What is your point about Catholicism and lovely Amy’s original topic of punishing pregnant women in the military?

I have no qualms with women serving on the front lines. Nor do I see a problem with enforcing a strict code of conduct that fosters an environment whereby everyone shares their portion of the military burden and no one escapes their duty by engaging in conduct that jeopardizes the unity of the group. If you do get pregnant, or are caught sexing up one of your comrades, their should be repercussions.

Why don’t you ask Palininatowel and Nflfoghorn? They are the individuals who thought it pertinent to mock Catholicism on a thread concerning combat pregnancies. And you’d fault me for responding? Interesting.

It takes a pretty odd worldview to declare Catholicism a ‘majority religion’ compared to Islam:
.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

PD~
They are neck and neck. A little over a billion adherents to both, so they’d both be considered majority religions. I think, although I cannot say for sure obviously, that Apollyon was perhaps referring to the US. Again I cannot say for sure, but I think the Catholic population in America far surpasses that of the Muslim population.

So I just can’t seem to work up the outrage over this post – either the general’s policy (which I’ve read he’s walked back) or Amy’s stupid question.

Good points, Exiled. While I find court-martial to be excessive, I agree that we can’t have women soldiers just dropping out of service because they’re pregnant. Wouldn’t a dishonorable discharge be an easier, cleaner, and more appropriate way of settling this? The same standard could be applied to men who get another soldier pregnant.

The troops are located in a war zone. The general is making a decision to stop ladies from getting pregnant just so they can go home. He isn’t telling them what they should do if they do become pregnant. Lets give the general the benefit of the doubt. And ladies, there are alternatives…am I right? MHMMM

That’s the point. Assuming the Army knows hanky-panky consistent with the rest of the world goes on in the ranks, they should be offering protection as a viable option. If they’re stuck in the 1950s and think everyone’s puritan, they can’t see that there’s a problem.

“And how would that work, given that military health plans don’t cover abortion procedures?”
.
Amy, your ignorance shows here. The word “plans” connotes some menu of plans that servicemen get to choose. There’s no such thing. Servicemen get free healthcare. Full stop.
.
Abortion is not covered because the military cannot be in the business of requiring military personnel to perform them.
.
The bottom line is that pregnancy at the wrong time for women impacts readiness. The general has a legitimate concern. Whether the punishment is lawful is a different matter. There’s also the issue of rape–he’s incentivizing the making of false rape claims.

Yes, worldwide both would be considered majority religions, though that’s not the point; you’re right that I was talking about America, given the subject of this post I figured it was implied, though I guess on the Internet you can’t ever be too specific. Just curious, does anyone disagree with the general sentiment that I conveyed up above?

ohiolib: Nobody is going to court-martial, that’s just CNN’s take. It’s a lawful order and if you disobey it you go to NJP — the only way a soldier would go to court-martial would be if they refused NJP and requested court-martial instead.

How many get pregnant? Read the article: it says four over the past two months.