Quantcast

What works and what is paused · Email is limited to account activation and password resets.

Jump to content


Photo

Pregnant U.S. soldiers could soon be court-martialed


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 chobitz

chobitz
  • 988 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:12 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - A U.S. Army general in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could be court-martialed.

The new policy, outlined last month by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo and released Friday by the Army, would apply to both female soldiers who become pregnant on the battlefield and the male soldiers who impregnate them.

Civilians reporting to Cucolo also could face criminal prosecution under the new guidelines.

Army spokesman George Wright said the service typically sends home from the battlefield soldiers who become pregnant. But it is not an Army-wide policy to punish them under the military's legal code, he said.

However, division commanders like Cucolo have the authority to impose these type of restrictions to personnel operating under their command, Wright said.

Cucolo's order outlines some 20 barred activities. Most of them are aimed at keeping order and preventing criminal activity, such as selling a weapon or taking drugs.

But other restrictions seemed aimed at preventing soldiers from leaving their unit short-handed, including becoming pregnant or undergoing elective surgery that would prevent their deployment.

Under Cucolo's order, troops also are prohibited from "sexual contact of any kind" with Iraqi nationals. And, they cannot spend the night with a member of the opposite sex, unless married or expressly permitted to do so.


I'm kinda torn about it. I can honestly see both sides of the issue. How many female soldiers get pregnant to keep out of active duty I wonder? But should the government tell a woman what do with their body?

If this policy stays put will the military mandate semi permanent birth control like the IUD , shots or implants?



Advertisement

    #2 Frank274

    Frank274
    • 2051 posts

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:57 AM

    If a women volunteers to join the Army, then yes, the government can tell her what she can and cannot do with her body.

    I don't think the military will do the IUD or the shot, but I think a discharge for a women getting pregnant (as well as the man who impregnates them) would be in store. Easiest fix.

    However, if she gets pregnant while at home (not deployed) then that's fine. In a combat situation, no. If you are overseas, you should be worried about killing people and staying alive and defending your country, not sex.

    #3 chobitz

    chobitz
    • 988 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:01 AM

    If a women volunteers to join the Army, then yes, the government can tell her what she can and cannot do with her body.


    Yep I agree with you on that.

    I don't think the military will do the IUD or the shot, but I think a discharge for a women getting pregnant (as well as the man who impregnates them) would be in store. Easiest fix.

    However, if she gets pregnant while at home (not deployed) then that's fine. In a combat situation, no. If you are overseas, you should be worried about killing people and staying alive and defending your country, not sex.


    But a court martial seems extreme to me. UNLESS they can prove the woman did it just to keep out of being deployed then yes press charges but an 'oops' shouldn't be court martialed IMO...

    #4 Icey Defeat

    Icey Defeat
    • 8298 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:05 AM

    I had to be a repeater here, but I agree that the government has the right to tell her and him what they can do with their bodies if they are volunteers.

    #5 chobitz

    chobitz
    • 988 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:09 AM

    I had to be a repeater here, but I agree that the government has the right to tell her and him what they can do with their bodies if they are volunteers.



    But isn't there a middle ground? Instead of the extremes of do nothing or court martial isn't there any type of compromise since either option is too exteme?

    #6 Vexage

    Vexage
    • 191 posts

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:07 PM

    Seems fine to me. They can't be having that in war times, too much other stuff to worry about.

    Also it seems they might be trying to protect the family element of this, protecting parents and the child.

    #7 Frank274

    Frank274
    • 2051 posts

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:47 PM

    But a court martial seems extreme to me. UNLESS they can prove the woman did it just to keep out of being deployed then yes press charges but an 'oops' shouldn't be court martialed IMO...


    An oops? Having sex in a warzone knowing there probably aren't any condoms for hundreds of miles is hardly an oops.

    They are probably going to classify this as an endangerment to national security. If she was to stay on the front lines and get taken as a POW, then the mass media would DEMAND her to be released because she's expecting a baby. So either we pay tons of money to our enemies or we put others in danger to save her life. Not worth it.

    Women who get pregnant while serving active duty should be placed on reserved duty. Women who get pregnant while deployed should be removed from the military.

    #8 Mr. Hobo

    Mr. Hobo
    • 8152 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:17 PM

    probably aren't any condoms for hundreds of miles is hardly an oops.


    Couldn't you bring them yourself?

    #9 Frank274

    Frank274
    • 2051 posts

    Posted 22 December 2009 - 05:52 PM

    Couldn't you bring them yourself?


    I'm sure you could, but that's not the point :p

    #10 crimsonsmile

    crimsonsmile
    • 60 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 09:40 AM

    I agree, once you've become a soldier you're the property of the U.S. government basically. In a combat zone they should be able to tell you whether or not you can become pregnant.

    But if she gets raped and becomes pregnant should she still be court-martialed? I mean, there's grey area here. If she was on the pill and it was defective is that her fault? It said that if she's married and her husband is there she's not banned from engaging in intercourse ("And, they cannot spend the night with a member of the opposite sex, unless married or expressly permitted to do so."). I'm sure that they provide medication like birth control to soldiers. I don't buy that there aren't condoms or some other contraceptive for miles, past experience must've taught the government that soldiers have sex... Lots and lots of sex.

    #11 mabuhay

    mabuhay
    • 8 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 11:14 AM

    yup, the government has control of what you can do to your body once you signed the dotted line. i got a tattoo after signing into the marine corps delayed entry program and i caught a lot of heat for it because i had signed that i wouldn't do anything that may jeopardize my eligibility and such. i had to strip down and all that stuff and a picture of my tattoo was sent to the higher ups to determine if it was marine corps worthy.

    i agree with the rest of you about court martialing being too extreme but i guess the military believes being pregnant is going awol since you won't be able to perform the duties that the government payed to train you in.


    edit: haha, i totally overlooked the part about the guys getting court martialed alongside the female soldier who was impregnated. no wonder i did horribly on my sat's

    Edited by mabuhay, 23 December 2009 - 01:56 PM.


    #12 Noitidart

    Noitidart
    • Neocodex Co-Founder

    • 23214 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 11:52 AM

    HAHAH funny replies.
    Yeah I think it's cool. You can't really prove it or not but benefit of doubt during a fight isn't something people give... ever.
    But I don't think the guy should be martialed as he can still do his duties. She knows what could happen, esp if she's not on pills and there's no condom, she should have said no.

    #13 Frank274

    Frank274
    • 2051 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 03:19 PM

    In the USMJ (or is it UCMJ? I always forget), it states that changing your deloyment status is punishable by court martial. Women have gotten pregnant overseas before, but this General is the first in a long long time to actually take action and put her up for a CM. The reason the guy is up for it is because he helped her change her status... guilty by association, in a sense.

    #14 Morrigan

    Morrigan
    • 66 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 03:35 PM

    In the USMJ (or is it UCMJ? I always forget), it states that changing your deloyment status is punishable by court martial. Women have gotten pregnant overseas before, but this General is the first in a long long time to actually take action and put her up for a CM. The reason the guy is up for it is because he helped her change her status... guilty by association, in a sense.


    UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    I didn't see it mentioned...General Cucolo backed off the court-martial threat.

    #15 ArticTheTiger

    ArticTheTiger
    • 1318 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 03:39 PM

    I think this is a bit extreme...

    I would say put them on the contraceptive pill rather than these measures, even though I think that is quite a big measure as well.

    #16 kbbbb

    kbbbb
    • 329 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 05:32 PM

    Women who get pregnant while serving active duty should be placed on reserved duty. Women who get pregnant while deployed should be removed from the military.

    And the man who did it. 2 to tango. And that includes doing DNA tests if the parties refuse to cooperate.

    Modern military's policy on sex on the job is a very strict NEVER. It flies in the face of the kind of discipline required in the military.

    Edited by kbbbb, 23 December 2009 - 05:33 PM.


    #17 Frank274

    Frank274
    • 2051 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 06:13 PM

    UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    I didn't see it mentioned...General Cucolo backed off the court-martial threat.


    Because fucking feminist groups were throwing a fucking fit. It pisses me off more than anything.

    Both the male and female involved need to be removed from the military. The military was designed to protect, not a service to find a sex partner. Makes me sick. You don't mix work and play. Honor and integrity violation.

    When I become an Officer in the Navy in 3 1/2 years, you can beat your ass that I will put people up for Captain's Mass (since I can't do CM because I'm not the CO) if I find them sleeping with each other while out to sea (which would be deloyed for us).

    #18 Morrigan

    Morrigan
    • 66 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 06:40 PM

    Both the male and female involved need to be removed from the military. The military was designed to protect, not a service to find a sex partner. Makes me sick. You don't mix work and play. Honor and integrity violation.


    That's the part I find insane. I don't want these people serving with my husband! I want their sole focus to be on completing their mission safely and coming back home with all limbs attached. I don't give a shit if they were on one of those massive FOBs, it's still a combat zone. Keep your damn genitals away from each other!

    #19 kbbbb

    kbbbb
    • 329 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 07:24 PM

    That's the part I find insane. I don't want these people serving with my husband! I want their sole focus to be on completing their mission safely and coming back home with all limbs attached. I don't give a shit if they were on one of those massive FOBs, it's still a combat zone. Keep your damn genitals away from each other!

    Morrigan, do you mind if I ask where you're husband is stationed (ie country)?

    #20 Morrigan

    Morrigan
    • 66 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:00 PM

    Morrigan, do you mind if I ask where you're husband is stationed (ie country)?


    He's currently in Afghanistan.

    #21 pyke

    pyke
    • 13686 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:08 PM

    When I become an Officer in the Navy in 3 1/2 years, you can beat your ass that I will put people up for Captain's Mass (since I can't do CM because I'm not the CO) if I find them sleeping with each other while out to sea (which would be deloyed for us).

    Yeah, because destroying troop morale by never letting them get laid will make you a really popular officer.

    #22 Ashlee

    Ashlee
    • 75 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:21 PM

    But I don't think the guy should be martialed as he can still do his duties. She knows what could happen, esp if she's not on pills and there's no condom, she should have said no.



    That's crap. He knows what could happen as well. Both parties are equally responsible for ensuring that the appropriate contraception is being used, and both should face the consequences when things go wrong. I don't think they should be having sex at all when they're on duty, especially in such a dangerous environment. I understand that they are away for months at a time and have normal human urges but masturbation is always an option! I'm sure that doesn't break any military rules and no babies come out of it.






    #23 Morrigan

    Morrigan
    • 66 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:23 PM

    Yeah, because destroying troop morale by never letting them get laid will make you a really popular officer.


    But, from what I recall, most fraternizing on a ship is grounds for discharge. Unless you're talking about shore leave.

    #24 Frank274

    Frank274
    • 2051 posts

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:23 PM

    Yeah, because destroying troop morale by never letting them get laid will make you a really popular officer.


    They may not respect me, but they will respect the rank. They can get action when we go to port. Sailors are out to sea between 6 months and one year. Most ships go to port every 3 weeks. If they need to have sex THAT badly, they can go screw a native of whichever country we are at.

    #25 Mr. Hobo

    Mr. Hobo
    • 8152 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:30 PM

    They may not respect me, but they will respect the rank. They can get action when we go to port. Sailors are out to sea between 6 months and one year. Most ships go to port every 3 weeks. If they need to have sex THAT badly, they can go screw a native of whichever country we are at.


    And historically that has worked out well...


    1 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users