http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
General defends court martial for pregnant soldiers
A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.
It is current army policy to send pregnant soldiers home, but Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo told the BBC he was losing people with critical skills.
That was why the added deterrent of a possible court martial was needed, he said.
The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.
It is the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.
Gen Cucolo told the BBC it was a "black and white" issue for him.
He said married soldiers in combat zones should either put their love lives on hold - or take precautions.
"I've got a mission to do, I'm given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them."
"So I'm going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the twelve months we are in the combat zone," he said.
His argument seems pretty impregnable to me.
I, on the other hand, see a fertile ground for argument.
Don't egg him on.
This policy currently only applies to Army personnel. I wonder if the Navy will adopt it, so the "no pregnancy" policy applies to seamen as well.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on December 21, 2009, 11:45:06 AM
This policy currently only applies to Army personnel. I wonder if the Navy will adopt it, so the "no pregnancy" policy applies to seamen as well.
And then to everything else? :question:
I guess he doesn't want to baby them.
I can't conceive a more misogynistic policy . . . .
It's too late. His decision is final. No pulling out on this one.
QuoteThe new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.
I'm still trying to figure out the "applies to men" part. I guess the trick is in the delivery.
Personally, I find the punishment to be a bit stiff.