Menstrual Suppression for Soldiers and Astronauts

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuizBowlNerd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, because as I said, birth control never treats the underlying condition but only mitigates symtoms. The best thing, of course, is if the condition can be diagnosed and treated.
 
TK421 said:
I just know the standard answer you’ll get from a Catholic bioethicist is that if the intent is not to contracept, but for some other medical reason, then it is fine.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the answer from a Catholic bioethicist would be a little more nuanced in this situation. Technically, the woman doesn’t have a medical reason that needs treated but instead it’s arising due to a particular work situation.
 
Last edited:
Many conditions can cause menstrual problems, for example PCOS and endometriosis.
 
I agree with that.

From my experience, most doctors actually go through the trouble of diagnosing the underlying conditions. Birth control pills aren’t automatically prescribed.

For example PCOS is tied to insulin resistance so a low carb diet and even fasting have been known to reverse this.
 
Last edited:
You mean menstruation would be a problem in a time of war?

In what way in the case of female pilots?

How exactly does that hinder them from flying?
 
Sarcelle said:
You mean menstruation would be a problem in a time of war?

In what way in the case of female pilots?

How exactly does that hinder them from flying?
Click to expand...
We all know that women are completely incapacitated during their periods and anyway they’d be too worried about breaking a nail or losing a hair tie to fly the plane anyway. These are definitely facts and not just lazy stereotypes.
 
I think a conversation can be had about whether women serving in combat is a good idea without the snark about the 50’s or being chained to a house. I’m sure there are good pro and con arguments on both sides that would be better discussed if it’s not assumed there is some conspiracy to tie women to the house. (are we saying that serving a family and managing a household is some kind of unvaluable work not worth doing?)
 
Last edited:
The thread is getting a little silly for me so I’m going to move on. I’ll just reiterate: women have all sorts of jobs that have grave responsibilities: doctors, nurses, paramedics, leaders that need to make split decisions, etc. A bad period might compromise their physical and mental abilities to some extent but you can play the same game with men. Men have hormonal fluctuations that affect their judgment and their temperment. Their stronger tendency towards violence makes them a liability. Their behavior can be a liability.

If we want to only have the perfect person take on a certain role then that role needs to remain empty because such a person doesn’t exist.

Instead of disqualifying everybody under the sun we can take certain precautions to minimize risk.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
I think a conversation can be had about whether women serving in combat is a good idea without the snark about the 50’s or being chained to a house. I’m sure there are good pro and con arguments on both sides that would be better discussed if it’s not assumed there is some conspiracy to tie women to the house. (are we saying that serving a family and managing a household is some kind of invaluable work not worth doing?)
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is saying that so much as objecting to the idea that a woman on her period is going to turn into a whiny, mincing stereotype. “Ooh, I can’t fly today, I’m on my period!!”

It’s demeaning to all the women who continue to do demanding and stressful jobs despite menstruation.
 
Normal menstruation doesn’t limit a woman’s ability to work in demanding positions, but pregnancy can, no?
 
tuffsmurf said:
Normal menstruation doesn’t limit a woman’s ability to work in demanding positions, but pregnancy can, no?
Click to expand...
Of course. In the military, pregnancy makes you non-deployable until a year after the baby is born.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
I don’t think anyone is saying that so much as objecting to the idea that a woman on her period is going to turn into a whiny, mincing stereotype. “Ooh, I can’t fly today, I’m on my period!!”

It’s demeaning to all the women who continue to do demanding and stressful jobs despite menstruation.
Click to expand...
Combat is very different now than it used to be with technological advances. Are there any combat situations today in which a woman’s lesser physical strength would put the lives of those in her unit in danger?
 
I believe that currently, women in combat rolls are voluntary, no?
Any woman wanting to serve in a combat position will probably also want to be the best she can be at it. If she’s going to be deployed into a combat zone with primitive condition and has the option to suppress her period while there, she might very well choose that. Most combat assignments are 3 months or so, right? In that case, she would only be suppressing for three months then allowing a return to a natural cycle.

If a woman is in a combat role and doesn’t want to suppress her periods, I bet she’ll be able to figure out a way to do that, as well or not go into primitive areas.

We women have been dealing with our menses for thousands of years. I worked a very stressful job with my periods all the time and I had terrible periods! Once you begin moving fast and concentrating on the task at hand, you can push aside any discomforts to get the job done. If ones period is more debilitating than that, she needs medical help anyways.
 
No

The objection is to to assume that ALL women should be housewives.

It’s like saying that all men should be farmers. Nothing wrong with being a farmer but it’s wrong to say all men should be farmers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top