Get pregnant, face court martial

Appears as though it just hit the media, and the backlash was more than anticipated. It is quite plausible that a Court Martial was never going to be the full extent of punishment, but it got twisted that way.

I didn't think there were any problems with women in the military. Obviously the general doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sounds like good policy to me...make yourself unavailable for duty, face punishment...pretty much the same if I showed up too drunk to fly...as opposed to "just drunk enough"

Down here at Ft Rucker they actually tell you during the initial briefing if you go down to Destin and get a sunburn so bad you cant fly they will article 15 your happy ass. But if a woman in flightschool gets herself knocked up they put her on a med hold till she can return to duty. No punative action taken.

Gotta love double standards.

Me too. In response to how NOW reacted to this: I call BS, and I consider myself to be pretty progressive when it comes to women's rights.

Everyone who joins the military makes a sacrifice -- for women in the military, especially while on deployment, this is one of the things we have to sacrifice. Women who use their bodies to get out of going on deployment or missions give the rest of us a bad name. This policy (or stricter enforcement of policy) is obviously about getting the job done in Iraq.

It's not really a double standard. If you get such a bad sunburn that you can't fly/operate/train as assigned- It's because you didn't take care of yourself. If a woman gets put on med hold for making a life decision (or lack of life decision like protection/the pill) it's so she can properly take care of herself. If you were to get med down doing something while taking the proper precautions I doubt you would get punished either- Just put on hold until you were ready to go.

That being said- My limited knowledge was that knocking boots on deployment wasn't allowed anyways....So it seems enforcing this "new" order should be a cinch?? And makes sense. At a time when everyone says "More troops" losing a few here and there to illicit/avoidable activities would be a big deal.

Suppose the condom broke, or whatever method you used didn't work?

Would you sue the company? Would you still get UCMJ'd?

They should enforce abstinence for all military members.

Because that stance has worked out so well for the public school system or the churches, or well, anything else for that matter..

Having sex in theater is a violation of a standing order. So the condom breaking is NOT an excuse.

You should probably loosen up the sarcasm notch on your radar there, bro.

Now that, is a really good point.

So what if the impregnator is a contractor?

Or a local?

Yes it is. If I participate in a personal activity that could result in me being non-deployable, I should expect to (and I will) get in trouble if the bad outcome happens.

Not true for women and pregnancy unless already deployed...see below.

The rule is there already. The Army is just attempting to use a result to identify and punish the crime.

I've been on a couple of ships where if you got caught having sex, you went to Captain's Mast ASAP. If you were married and got bagged, then part of your punishment was to call home and explain to your spouse why you just lost 1/2 months pay for 3 months!

I know everyone has a story about a female who got pregnant about a month prior to deploying.

The problem is two fold; first the unit is now short-handed or someone from another unit gets a 'good deal'.

Second, it reflects badly for all women who have to overcome the stigma of the ones who are getting pregnant to skip a deployment.

My opinion is if you want to join the military than you have to make certain sacrifices, one of which is you can't get pregnant in certain time windows. I know lots of guys who missed the birth of a child because they were deployed; hey, that's the breaks of Naval Air, but with women, there is a double standard.

Since the husband can be deployed since leaving him behind would hurt the unit’s readiness, then why should women be exempted from the same readiness requirement.

Equality cuts both ways. You want into the military then you have to abide by certain restrictions. If you want to get pregnant, you need to time it with you career, or get out.

Don't even get me started on the women who get pregnant within months of finishing boot camp!!!

Your argument would hold water, if there was no such thing as sunscreen (ie: a proper precaution - just like condoms). Condoms break, sunscreen doesn't always cover everything up or gets washed up or wears out.

Edit: Not trying to argue for/against/about sunscreen or sunburns, just pointing out that MANY things we do in life have proper precautions that if mismanaged will result in you being med-down/injured.

here's an idea

Here's an idea:

If a woman on active duty gets pregnant, give her a leave of absence for a year. Add an additional year onto the end of her commitment.

But what if I take all said steps to mitigate my risky behavior. If I lather myself up with SPF 50 and keep a shirt on and stay out of the sun. What if I just happen to be fair skinned and get myself cooked by accident. Can I blame the situation on an unforseen and unwanted outcome. I mean its not like I wanted to get sunburned it just happened. Same for motorcycle riders, scuba divers, rock climbing.... The only thing you can do on this post where the possible outcome might result in you being grounded and not get in trouble for is screwing.

You cant enforce a standard for one group of people with legal and possible career impacting resolve and then leave the other group alone for something that is when it comes right down to it an understood choice with possible outcomes.

We're currently overstock on aviators with an absolute drive to eliminate "the bubble." Believe me some of the crap people have been thrown out of flightschool much less article 15'd for down here is astounding.

IIRC doesn't the MC have a policy of requiring certain deploying women to get the "shot?" Sure makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Ive been screaming anyone on title 20 or any other form of welfare be put on it for years. If you cant financially support yourself you have no buisness and no right to bring another person into this world. We'll let a person drop a child off at a firestation or hospital with no questions asked but god forbid we tell somebody they cant have any kids because they are unfit to take care of a hampster much less another person. :icon_rage