-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS Sen Tuberville and Appointment Delays
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
- Status
Yes… anyone can observe it. ? You’re a trip, dude.
How do you mean? The father, if he's even known, gets so say legally as I understand it. Other than that, I'm not sure what specifically you're asking.
Well, if the women have to sacrifice autonomy over their body, giving partial control to society (their neighbors, etc.) what are the men required to sacrifice? Or do they have no play in this? It’s all on the women?
A great turn-of-the-century American thinker said this regarding the man’s minimum obligation:
“18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo' kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby momma car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV any given Sunday
Win the Super Bowl and drive off in a Hyundai.”
Ah yes. Truly a genius and the voice of a generation.
The men are required to pay child support if the woman keeps the child, as well as help with the medical expenses. He should also be there to support her in other ways, but society can't enforce that.
What else are you arguing they should have to do? Or are you just saying that it's unfair that mother nature dealt women that hand, and if I can't think of a way to make the man suffer as much as the woman then that somehow justifies the woman ending another person's life prematurely?
If we really are going to debate abortion, then answer me this. Why is murder wrong, if not because it is one person ending the life of another prematurely? That is.. if Joe does nothing, Jill's life will continue... But if Joe takes action to end Jill's life, that is wrong.
If you agree that's why murder is wrong, then how is abortion in most cases different? If a doctor does nothing, the baby's life will continue. His/her actions end another's life prematurely that has done nothing wrong.
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be in the power of the Secretary to establish some sort of reimbursement for impacts to firearm ownership caused by PCS. Probably not a policy the current administration would be interested in, but you can ask. Personally, as an officer, I'd probably find such a policy to be just another added-on to a long list of relatively niche things we do to minimize the impacts of PCS that don't impact my life.
I actually think it's a reasonable question if we're sidestepping the moral debate on abortion and looking just at the legality of the policy and the appropriate method of opposing it. The President directed his administration to maximize reproductive access within the boundaries of current law, and the Secretary of Defense did that. We can debate the accuracy of the legal review, but basically until challenged in court or made explicitly illegal, it's a legal use of the Secretary's authority. The Senator's approach to challenging the policy seems a little problematic. On the other hand, this is how politics work (which says something about some broken systems in our government).
If your opinion is "abortion is always murder and therefore it's acceptable to increase the suffering of real women" there's no real point in debating. Agree to disagree. I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Keep advocating for your beliefs, and I'll be content that elections have consequences.
And so...the question at this point is not whether or where elective abortion is moral, ethical, or legal, but rather to what extent Sen Tubeville, as a representative of one side of this debate, is willing to undermine the national security of the United States in order to achieve his aims. The somewhat disturbing answer seems to be, "quite a bit." He and the people whose viewpoint he represents see this an an existential question. Indeed, in US politics, THE existential question.
Sidebar: It seems like it's really hard to measure to what extent each day without a USMC commandant *actually* undermines national security--but maybe we can agree that a) it's better to have people in those positions, and b) the more and longer positions are vacant, the more damage is done.
Sidebar: It seems like it's really hard to measure to what extent each day without a USMC commandant *actually* undermines national security--but maybe we can agree that a) it's better to have people in those positions, and b) the more and longer positions are vacant, the more damage is done.
Short answer: there are definitely means to make it more fair, and that would be in the child’s interest.
We could require all men to give a DNA sample to a national paternity registry, and then when a child is born, we would run them against the registry know who the father was and he’d be required to support the child.
If the child needed a kidney, blood transfusion, or similar, the government could take it. Sounds intrusive, but no more so than putting a woman in custody to force them to give birth. That would make the skin in the game far more symmetric.
While the question is in jest I believe that the hold is only for O-9 & O-10's since each one of those appointments, promotions and retirements has to be individually approved unlike for most O-7's & O-8's, though I could be mistaken. As for it impacting readiness, it certainly is though your average soldier or sailor may not see it.
I know of one MPRA O7 select who is still waiting . . .
FormerRecruitingGuru
Making Recruiting Great Again
Mattingly?
- Status