Unplanned Pregnancies Hurt Military Women, Mission Readiness

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/unintended-pregnancies-military-double-generation-population-study/story?id=18307178

About 900 women had been unable to deploy in the past year due to a pregnancy, either planned or unplanned, according to the study.

The fact that a women works for microsoft or GM does not take their biological right to have a baby. The fact that out of 1.4 million active duty military that 900 women had babies or 0.0006428 % impact on our military......probably about the same as hernias or appendix. Women give birth. The problem remains in this country that too many want to make woman marginal participants in this country. Once I became a father and now a grandfather of women......well I support their full right to reach their god given potential.....without men with small penises trying to somehow turn them into second class American citizens, or by restricting them from things the small weeny crowd are doing which somehow is macho......sorry woman have babies and that is a very good thing. Women are serving with honor in the military, and this innuendo of deficiency is simply statistically insignificant.

Military deployment must take in probabilities to be prepared. This very small impact on our preparedness is easily accounted for with proper planning.

900 women were not able to deploy due to pregnancy. How many women deployed and then a month or so later found out they were pregnant and had to leave the deployment early?

Well I would never have given women the vote. See what a mess we are in now....who voted for Obama? Women.

LOL, Teo. Plenty of men voted for him too.

hallmarkgrad wrote:I got of the Army in 1967, 46 tears ago. In the past 46 years I have never had a women say to me "You son of a Bitch! You have deprived me of my rights!!!. I could have slept in the mud, pulled KP, washed trucks, ate "C" ration and crapped in a cut off 55 gallon drum. But no, you and your kind could not stand that I might show you up. Now you have all the necessary skills to be successful while I was denied. It is just isn't fair"

Love it, Hallmark!

hallmarkgrad wrote:.without men with small penises trying to somehow turn them into second class American citizens, or by restricting them from things the small weeny crowd are doing which somehow is macho..

Sometimes you seem to obsessed with penis size. So what happens to the baby after it is born? Do they put it in a foot locker and nurse it in between incoming rounds?

Something tells me seaoat has never spent a day in the military, at least his small penis envy and lack of military operations seem to indicate he never has.

Love the... er, marksmanship.

Something tells me seaoat has never spent a day in the military, at least his small penis envy and lack of military operations seem to indicate he never has.

Never been in the military, never been a pilot, never been a fireman, never been in the FBI, never been CIA, and never worked as a lineman for a major utility.........so I do not feel inadequate about women entering those fields, nor is my masculinity defined by a job that a woman can do, but because of a good old boyz club......I do not want to let those blacks, gays, and women reach equality with me.....you know.....a woman running the state department.........a woman general, or heaven forbid......a lady lineman taking all those risks and getting dirty.....having to lift heavy things.......but guess what.....women are proving that the boyz who defined their masculinity by their job......well in some situations.....well they are superior.

As to small penis envy......I never had that.....but I have seen it all my life, and now that I am taking my hormone repressing shots to slow the endocrine cancer from spreading......well little seaoat is ......well getting smaller.....so I speak from first hand experience now how difficult it must have been for so many to have to prove what a man is by a job.....when......well the other inadequacies needed compensating material.....but then......heck those woman need to be protected by this big strong man.........the last laugh is always with the ladies....

2seaoat wrote:About 900 women had been unable to deploy in the past year due to a pregnancy, either planned or unplanned, according to the study.

The fact that a women works for microsoft or GM does not take their biological right to have a baby. The fact that out of 1.4 million active duty military that 900 women had babies or 0.0006428 % impact on our military......probably about the same as hernias or appendix. Women give birth. The problem remains in this country that too many want to make woman marginal participants in this country. Once I became a father and now a grandfather of women......well I support their full right to reach their god given potential.....without men with small penises trying to somehow turn them into second class American citizens, or by restricting them from things the small weeny crowd are doing which somehow is macho......sorry woman have babies and that is a very good thing. Women are serving with honor in the military, and this innuendo of deficiency is simply statistically insignificant.

Military deployment must take in probabilities to be prepared. This very small impact on our preparedness is easily accounted for with proper planning.

Not when the women do it repeatedly to get out of deployments. When women PLAN to get pregnancies, a unit has to send someone in their place. The unit does not have the option of not sending a body to the AOR.

Yomama wrote:Love the... er, marksmanship.

Who knows what she is hitting from this perspective..

Not when the women do it repeatedly to get out of deployments. When women PLAN to get pregnancies, a unit has to send someone in their place. The unit does not have the option of not sending a body to the AOR.




Sorry.....women have babies. It comes with the territory. Contrary to your constant rationalizing your limited view on this issue by saying I never served......well you did and you never made rank to make a difference....the joint chiefs on the other hand were successful and get to make the rules. They say woman should enter some combat jobs which were formerly unavailable because of a blanket restriction.....so who do you think is right? Folks who were successful in the military, and old guy who never served, or somebody who proudly served his country and has some strong opinions on the issue. Guess what......we both are irrelevant, and the decision has been made. Our country and military will be stronger.

Here, I will say this for a lot of us. For a Person that has never served to state, .well you did and you never made rank to make a difference. Fuck you!!!! At least we God Damned tried!!!!

Here, I will say this for a lot of us. For a Person that has never served to state, .well you did and you never made rank to make a difference. Fuck you!!!! At least we God Damned tried!!!!


Nobody said a thing about not caring.....simply put you could not make rank to have line command of the issues today.....and as a civilian I never served and as regular as clockwork I am reminded of the same, and I too never had the rank to have line command of the issues today. So you degrade women's rights, you all but call our joint chiefs of staff idiots, and you make me less of an American unable to have an opinion of concurrence with the Joint Chiefs because of exactly what.........at least we GD tried......ok, I am certain I will be seeing some of the posters on this forum testifying on CSPAN because the threshold is service.....not tough combat experience, men who actually lead in combat, men who are brilliant and courageous....nope the threshold is >>>I TRIED>>>>sorry to ruffle feathers, but to take away other people's rights to reach their full potential by prejudice which is not based on facts......but the Joint Chiefs who have actually studied these issues and wisely followed a course of exemptions and limited expansion.....they just need to get on this forum and learn....it will not be from me....I never served....nope....we need the folks who think they have tried to make the policy.

It's a political decision, pure and simple.

It's a political decision, pure and simple.

So you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff would risk this nation's security because of politics.....sorry.....you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to call the Joint chiefs of Staff as corrupt and uncaring about the men and women under their command......because of politics. Do you really think these folks would risk American lives over politics? I have watched these folks testify.....I am totally impressed with how competent our military has become. We are not kicking asz in three days in full combat situations by the caveman attitudes, rather we are winning because of intelligence.

How about this.......is it possible that our armed services will actually be stronger and more responsive because of these decisions?

I had the pleasure of seeing a girl I coached in 8th grade basketball serve her country honorably and is now a County Sheriff's Deputy. She is a strong and beautiful 31 year old woman. Her service to her country gave her an opportunity in a profession which rarely saw females 30 years ago. I have personally seen a woman kick the crap out of a uniformed male police officer......but prior to women having the opportunity to serve.....we were told that women officers would be inferior and the public would be at risk......let me just say this......I doubt too many people would have much success resisting arrest with my former BB player.....I would love to see some macho men telling Sarah that she could not do her job because she is a woman not suited for street combat.....yep prejudice can point to women who have failed.....but that police officer who got his butt kicked by a woman.....was a man.....he left the police force because of the whispers....and the sad thing is....anyone, at anytime can be taken down.....so lets put the prejudice in the closet, and lets those able serve.

It's a mistake to think that career senior military officers are NOT politically motivated. How do you think they got those stars?


Sorry, but the job of a female police officer is not the same as the job of a female soldier who is deployed in a combat zone for months or years.

2seaoat wrote:It's a political decision, pure and simple.

So you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff would risk this nation's security because of politics.....sorry.....you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to call the Joint chiefs of Staff as corrupt and uncaring about the men and women under their command......because of politics. Do you really think these folks would risk American lives over politics? I have watched these folks testify.....I am totally impressed with how competent our military has become. We are not kicking asz in three days in full combat situations by the caveman attitudes, rather we are winning because of intelligence.

How about this.......is it possible that our armed services will actually be stronger and more responsive because of these decisions?

Yes it is highly possible. IF women have to meet and maintain the exact same physical standards that men do without exception. BUT any one who has been around or in the military knows men and women will not have to meet the same physical standards. If they do have the exact same standards all it will take is one women to file an EEO complaint that the physical standards are unfair because she is a women and women aren't as physically capable as men, thats why she couldn't pass the same physical test as a man and guess what the military will cave in, change the standards to make it easier for women just to avoid all the bad press.

one women to file an EEO complaint that the physical standards are unfair because she is a women

They do not have jurisdiction over the military.

Sorry, but the job of a female police officer is not the same as the job of a female soldier who is deployed in a combat zone for months or years.


Out of 238K positions which are classified as combat.....more than half those positions are less risky than what the average police officer faces in the streets every day......sorry if this was the civil war and our combat troops were making Pickett's charge this fantasy might hold up......the truth which has been addressed by the Joint Chiefs who are soldiers first, and politicians second is that woman can do many of those 238K positions which they were restricted, and tell me about the risks of woman running non armor logistics is compared to a person who has a combat classification in a tank......and females are deployed in combat zones for months and years....and they get blown up regularly.....but the blowing up part is equal opportunity, the advancement opportunity where the best and the brightest rise to their capabilities is the only thing which the prejudice accomplishes.......So our best and brightest in the military are simple politicians, and women are not capable of serving because being cops, firefighters, and pilots are somehow comparing apples and oranges.....yep, I am sure you felt the same way about blacks and gays in military being deployed, but history has shown that also was a mistake.

The Joint chief of staffs helped to almost destroy the US Army between 1967 and 1971. Strong Statement? Yes. They were unable to control the volatile situation of conscripted Blacks in the Military. It is a nasty part of American History than is not well known and seldom written about. We in fact had 2 Armys. How did this happen? Who was responsible? You will not find the answers watching TV. Ask a Vietnam Vet or just do a simple Google search. Self-Destruction, the Disintegration and Decay of the United States Army During the Vietnam Era [Hardcover]
Cincinnat

To compare a Police officer with Military combat is ludicrous. A GI doesn't go home after a shift, nor can he quit, and many times he is 8,000 mile away in a strange land with Hundreds if not 1,000 trying to kill him 24/7.

...............................................................................................................

You are trying to draw a logical conclusion about some that you do not have all the facts. Our leaders including the Joint chiefs of staff and even the Secretary of defence can be wrong, Very very wrong.


Donald Rumsfeld
I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.
Interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect, November 14, 2002 [4]
And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
TownHall Meeting At Aviano Air Base in Italy, February 7, 2003 [5
...................................................................................................