Hubbs Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Can't say I understand how this is legal. Link 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Least based on my limited understanding of Things Military, "Rendering yourself unfit for duty" is a crime. Whether it's "pregnant" or "too hung over to fly toady's mission". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 It is legal because when you sign up as a soldier, your body literally becomes government property. And if they don't give you permission to get their property pregnant, you're legally responsible if it ends up that way. I remember a guy i knew in the Navy got an article 15 for getting a sunburn that causeed him to miss a day of duty. The reason? Damaging government property to the point that it could not perform it's function. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Seems reasonable to me,the military has contracted for your services . Simple breach of contract added General Cucolo's order outlines about 20 barred activities. Most are aimed at keeping order and preventing criminal activity, such as selling a weapon or taking drugs. But others seem aimed at preventing soldiers from leaving their unit short-handed, including becoming pregnant or undergoing elective surgery that would prevent deployment. They are also prohibited from ''sexual contact of any kind'' with Iraqis or spending the night with a member of the opposite sex, http://www.smh.com.au/world/general-declares-war-on-pregnancy-20091220-l7jq.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Sunburn nearly got me in that mess for sure. I worked through it,but that's because of the consequences if I didn't. I think the General is at his wit's end on this one. Doing everything else to have his people at least show caution,(protection,abstinence),and at the most some will power and apparently it hasn't worked. So he goes this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Although I'm wondering: If the person who got the soldier pregnant is a soldier, then does he plan to court martial the male, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Although I'm wondering: If the person who got the soldier pregnant is a soldier, then does he plan to court martial the male, too? Yes it is in the link I added...along with other prohibitions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Yes it is in the link I added...along with other prohibitions Then it sounds like we can't even claim that he's picking on the women, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 It is legal because when you sign up as a soldier, your body literally becomes government property. And if they don't give you permission to get their property pregnant, you're legally responsible if it ends up that way.I remember a guy i knew in the Navy got an article 15 for getting a sunburn that causeed him to miss a day of duty. The reason? Damaging government property to the point that it could not perform it's function. ~Bang Yeah, I've heard lots of stories like that. I think the real problem arises when someone deliberately gets pregnant in order to be sent home or get out of duty. I wouldn't doubt that it happens that way more than we might imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Yeah, I've heard lots of stories like that.I think the real problem arises when someone deliberately gets pregnant in order to be sent home or get out of duty. I wouldn't doubt that it happens that way more than we might imagine. Well, that calls in the entire question of integrated combat units. I am against it, war is no place for social change. If women want to fight, fine, make them their own units. Mixing the two is a recipe for bad morale and a host of other problems. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Yeah, I've heard lots of stories like that.I think the real problem arises when someone deliberately gets pregnant in order to be sent home or get out of duty. I wouldn't doubt that it happens that way more than we might imagine. I know for a fact that happens. At least did when I served. Well, that calls in the entire question of integrated combat units. I am against it, war is no place for social change. If women want to fight, fine, make them their own units. Mixing the two is a recipe for bad morale and a host of other problems.~Bang Problem is,integrated or not,they're going to find each other. When I was in basic training,the flights weren't integrated. They still found a way. I don't have a lot to compare to,but in my time in the military,(and I understand this is just me),I didn't find the mixing a bad morale move overall. At least not any more so than other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Well, that calls in the entire question of integrated combat units. I am against it, war is no place for social change. If women want to fight, fine, make them their own units. Mixing the two is a recipe for bad morale and a host of other problems.~Bang Isn't that patently unfair to those that both obey the rules and work their ass off to punish them because of others actions? It is a individuals responsibility both to the contract signed and to their unit to fulfill their duties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Isn't that patently unfair to those that both obey the rules and work their ass off to punish them because of others actions?It is a individuals responsibility both to the contract signed and to their unit to fulfill their duties It is, but the entire concept of law is for the few who can't act right without being forced to do so. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I support this 100%. When I first clicked on the thread I thought that the BBC had to be raising issue with them court martialing pregnant soldiers here domestically (which I would not support), because I thought that getting pregnant in the CTO was already a court martialable offense. Looks like I was wrong. This needs to be made DOD policy period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 It's completely legal because of General Order #1 or G.O. 1 as it's so affectionately called by those who know it intimately. As soon as you enter the AOR or whenever the order is put into place by those with the authority do so you are no longer allowed to consume alcohol, possess pornography, engage in sexual relations or anything else fun, Lol. Seriously, it's a no brainer. All of these things are illegal because of the adverse affect any of them can have on the mission and it's accomplishment. It's a direct and lawful order, you get pregnant and you're breaking that order which will can get you a one way ticket to courts martial. It should be prosecuted in order to maintain good order and discipline. If not, any girl who wants to get out of deploymeng goes out of her way to get knocked up. What also goes with that is the drama that comes with having a young lady slinging the goods all over the place. You got a bunch of guys with overactive hormones humping anything that moves, adultery, rape and sexual assaults. All of this goes on with it being illegal to have sex, imagine if it went unprosectuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I don't have a problem with it, provided that there is some evidence that the soldier tried to get pregnant in order to avoid serving. Rumor has it that a large number of female soldiers are trying to get pregnant to avoid their duties, although I don't know how much truth there is in such rumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Sounds about right to me. I don't understand a woman, who's partial job description is NOT to get pregnant, somehow still gets pregnant. Absolutely ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I don't have a problem with it, provided that there is some evidence that the soldier tried to get pregnant in order to avoid serving. Rumor has it that a large number of female soldiers are trying to get pregnant to avoid their duties, although I don't know how much truth there is in such rumors. I fail to see why the military should care about the motivations. If a pilot is too hung over to fly today's mission, do they have to prove that he got drunk specifically to avoid flying? Or is "unfit for duty" a good enough reason? If a soldier is AWOL, do they have to prove that he was intentionally AWOL? Or is "he ain't here" all it takes? (OK, I could see how some excuses might be considered as basis for reduced sentence. If the hungover pilot got drunk because Goose died when he attempted to eject yesterday, then I could see a basis to not rule that "well, the guy's entitled to a one-day drunk". Similarly, if, say, the soldiers having sex used a condom, and the damn thing failed, then maybe I could see a basis for a reduction of sentence. I just don't think that "intent to avoid service" should be a requirement in order to prosecute.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Good points Larry that reflect the military's thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 What if Mary were to sign-up? I mean what does the Army have against virgin pregnancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 What if Mary were to sign-up? I mean what does the Army have against virgin pregnancy? Well imagine the outcry if the sent the mother of the Messiah into a combat zone. And if they don't send her, that's religious discrimination against whoever they send. Catch-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 What if Mary were to sign-up? I mean what does the Army have against virgin pregnancy? I think the Gunny in Full Metal Jacket mentioned what the Corps policy on that subject was. Don't know if the Army has the same policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Well imagine the outcry if the sent the mother of the Messiah into a combat zone. And if they don't send her, that's religious discrimination against whoever they send.Catch-22. But just imagine if you sent the mother of the messiah into a war zone and suddenly peace broke out and all the soldiers went out fishing together? Imagine if suddenly every bomb became a dud and no gun functioned and jets found themselves firing pop tarts! And in the torture tents instead of hearing 24 hours of Barney they started playing the Carpenters. See, the military isn't thinking this through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 But just imagine if you sent the mother of the messiah into a war zone and suddenly peace broke out and all the soldiers went out fishing together?Imagine if suddenly every bomb became a dud and no gun functioned and jets found themselves firing pop tarts! And in the torture tents instead of hearing 24 hours of Barney they started playing the Carpenters. See, the military isn't thinking this through. Or maybe they ARE thinking it through, and the military realizes that world peace would be bad for their particular line of work. Maybe they're smarter, and more cunning, than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Or maybe they ARE thinking it through, and the military realizes that world peace would be bad for their particular line of work.Maybe they're smarter, and more cunning, than you think. Hmmm... Always knew conservatives were anti-messiah and anti-christian :peace: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.