Gays and/or women in combat

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:42 am

what happens if a woman gets pregnant ?

Or how much would it cost per female soldier to provide them with mandatory birth control?

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:14 am

[quote="CyberEd";p="433228"]what happens if a woman gets pregnant ?[/quote]
what happens when a man gets the flu and is to sick to fight?

he gets treated and put back into his job as soon as possible. why wouldn't they try to do the same for women who are pregnant?

When a male soldier gets a woman pregnant they have to make a choice between having his girlfriend/wife/recent-knock-up take care of the child while he is on duty or leaving the service or getting a different assignment where he can be able to take care of the child. Would this be any different for a woman?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:46 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="433230"]

what happens if a woman gets pregnant ?

Or how much would it cost per female soldier to provide them with mandatory birth control?[/quote]
Hey, fuckknuckle, it's not entirely unheard-of for women to become pregnant even *with* birth control, and sometimes they actually want to become pregnant. What are you going to do, restrict their right to have children?

[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="433239"][quote="CyberEd";p="433228"]what happens if a woman gets pregnant ?[/quote]
what happens when a man gets the flu and is to sick to fight?

he gets treated and put back into his job as soon as possible. why wouldn't they try to do the same for women who are pregnant?[/quote]
Oh, good answer. The child is a sickness? Just get over it and move on? I mean, I'm doubting that they carry cribs with them in the back of the Humvees.

When a male soldier gets a woman pregnant they have to make a choice between having his girlfriend/wife/recent-knock-up take care of the child while he is on duty or leaving the service or getting a different assignment where he can be able to take care of the child. Would this be any different for a woman?

Who's the "they" that allegedly has to make this choice? Is this some sort of standard procedure in your person experience or what?

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:56 pm

Deacon, "they" is the couple who had the child. I shoud have been more clear

And no, the child is not a sickness. The pregnancy is, however, a legitimate reason to not be in a combat situation just like of a man got the flu. And no they don't have cribs in the back of Humvees thats why i made the other coment about making a choice about who would care for the child just like it were a man in that position.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:09 pm

naval_aviator_2040,a flu (usually) is over after 9 days, pregnancy 9 months.
you cannot expect a woman who recently had a child to be fit like she was before she had the child - she'd have to take training (or at least the physical part) all over again - which brings me back to my first point... it's not worth the investment of time and money in that fighter...
btw - I am yet to meet a man who can breastfeed, and while talking about the average woman... an average woman would be more attentive to infants than a man...

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:40 pm

I realize all of that but does that give us the right to tell someone that they are not allowed to fight and die for their beliefs?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:04 pm

Hey, fuckknuckle, it's not entirely unheard-of for women to become pregnant even *with* birth control, and sometimes they actually want to become pregnant. What are you going to do, restrict their right to have children?

It's not unheard of, but it's also not common. It'd certainly be less common than the soldiers becoming pregnant and needing to go on some sort of leave for some duration of time. As for "wanting to become pregnant" and "restricting their right to have children"... well, look at the posts between your post and my reply. If they want to have a family, quit the army. Else... *shrugs* its a part of the job. If you blow off your arm, you can't really be a front-line soldier, same as if you become pregnant.

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:06 pm

restrict their right to have children

Yes. Exactly. If a woman wants to join the army she may have to give up her reproductive rights for the duration of her service. If she becomes pregnant and it is shown that she did not take substantial precautions to avoid it, she could be court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged for having violated service.

Pregnancy at this day and age is very much a choice in cases other than rape. So it can be likened, in the case of the military, to a drug habit (in a way; don't be tiresome and blow the analogy out of proportion please). Something that a woman chooses to do that severely disrupts her ability to serve. If she wants to get pregnant, she shouldn't be in the military. If she is averse to birth control, then I guess she'll have to be abstinent, hmm?

elroy · Post by **elroy** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:56 pm

[quote="Phong";p="432595"]A study conducted by the Army at Fort Benning showed that women had a much higher failure rate on PRT tests than men, even at their reduced standards. I cited the study in an essay I wrote on the subject my Freshman year in college (okay, last year to be strictly honest).[/quote]How much worse ? And how much would that be if the standards had not been reduced ? Personally I'd be okay with women in the army as long as they maintain the same standards. In the end what really matters is the army being up to it, not getting a 'fair' percentage of women in the army.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:56 am

[quote="Phong";p="432595"]A study conducted by the Army at Fort Benning showed that women had a much higher failure rate on PRT tests than men, even at their reduced standards. I cited the study in an essay I wrote on the subject my Freshman year in college (okay, last year to be strictly honest). [/quote]

Ok. What about the women who didn't fail? The ones who would be able to pass even the men's standards? Should we deny them what they obiously had to train even harder than the men to get to?

Lunatic Jedi · Post by **Lunatic Jedi** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:36 am

To quote John Stewart, I think the problem they have with openly gay people in the military is that they're afraid of having tons of guys with M-16s going "WHO'D YOU CALL A FAGGOT?!"

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:03 am

[quote="CyberEd";p="433228"]now back to the subject at hand: try putting yourself in a commanders position.
lets say you command an infantry troop.
now all of a sudden girls are added to this troup which means that:
1. you'd have to kill half your budget on logistics.[/quote]
Why? They can travel in the same vehicles, shoot the same guns, eat the same food, drink the same water. They may have to be provided a couple of extra supplies, but these are lightweight and unlikely to require special helicopter flights to bring in.

2. you'd have to worry about discipline.

Not if your unit trains properly together and discipline is enforced.

3. you'd have to make sure (more than before - since you have a big group who's statistically aint up for the job) everyone's up for the job.

Not if everyone passes the same standards.

btw, I'd be glad if someone from the US military (or someone with info) would enlighten me about womans service. regarding point (a) of me first post - it would just be unprofitable to train a woman here. how about the US military ? how long do women serve ? how long are they on reserves ? what happens if a woman gets pregnant ?

Women sign for the same eight-year commitment, which is usually four years active duty and four years of Reserve duty, which can also be made up of active service. Even once this is done, there is still the Ready Reserve, though I'm not sure about the conditions there.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:27 pm

[quote="Martin Blank";p="433487"]They can travel in the same vehicles, shoot the same guns, eat the same food, drink the same water.[/quote]
True enough. But can they sleep in the same bunks? Shower in the same open bay? Hit the same latrine? Not be a constant distration to the horny men in the room?

2. you'd have to worry about discipline.
Not if your unit trains properly together and discipline is enforced.

That's a matter of opinion, MB, one with which I do not personally agree, though either way we're generalizing on very specific topics, such as when and where these troops are, what nationality, what background, what counts as "trains properly" and the right "discipline enforced", etc.

3. you'd have to make sure (more than before - since you have a big group who's statistically aint up for the job) everyone's up for the job.
Not if everyone passes the same standards.

See, now there's a point I can get behind.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:23 pm

3. you'd have to make sure (more than before - since you have a big group who's statistically aint up for the job) everyone's up for the job.
Not if everyone passes the same standards.
See, now there's a point I can get behind.

I'd still make sure more than before, it's mens lives we're talking about, better get all doubts out of the way...

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:00 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="433571"]True enough. But can they sleep in the same bunks? Shower in the same open bay? Hit the same latrine? Not be a constant distration to the horny men in the room?[/quote]
Judging from reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, showering separately isn't often a problem in combat situations because... well, no one gets a shower. Some of the soldiers in Iraq were doing sponge baths -- if that much for a few weeks from the time fighting started.

We already have mixed-gender units in the field, though they're mostly logistics. They've been in Iraq from the beginning of the war, and not all of them live on cushy bases. It hasn't proven to be an Army-crushing issue yet. The question is whether these mixed units should be allowed in combat, and I see no reason why not, especially since some of these mixed-gender units do end up fighting.

Real Life Forums

Gays and/or women in combat

Who is online