Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NormsRevenge

I guess if women really want to be shot at - why not? The only thing that is required is that if the female combat troop gets pregnant that there must be an article in the UCMJ that immediately discharges them with a general discharge and no future medical care for the mother or child.

They should be barred from future claims as well.

Reason is that many years ago they added women to the crew of Navy ships - seems they can’t be deployed if they are pregnant so that served as a convenient way to get transferred back to shore duty - miss Mom and Dad, get knocked up and whoosh - you are home in your own bed, getting fed, drawing your full pay and benefits, and occupying a shore duty billet that should be reserved for a sailor (male or female) who is deserving of the assignment.

Men don’t have that option - they just get stung with the support payments.


27 posted on 11/27/2012 1:52:26 PM PST by msrngtp2002 (Just my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: msrngtp2002

“The only thing that is required is that if the female combat troop gets pregnant that there must be an article in the UCMJ that immediately discharges them with a general discharge and no future medical care for the mother or child.”


Actually they should be forced to have an abortion, be courtsmartialed for damaging government equipment and have their rank stripped then thrown back into the front lines.

That’s the equivalent to what happened to GIs in WWI and WW2 that contracted an STD.


46 posted on 11/27/2012 3:03:21 PM PST by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson