Prohibiting pregnancy?

[NCSue]

Read acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2010/01/penalizing-pregnancy.html for a brief summary of an article from the Jan. 3, 2010 issue of Our Sunday Visitor. I’m interested in your opinion about the policy of a U.S. Army commander who has issued a policy prohibiting pregnancy for those under his command in Iraq. Women who become pregant (or men who impregnate them) could face jail time and court-martial, regardless of their marital status.

What do you think about this policy?

 

[1ke]

Here’s my opinion.

(a) The general rescinded this policy after pressure from powers that be so it’s a moot point.

(b) Pregnancy in combat zones would be-- in almost all cases-- the result of illicit sex between personnel not married to each other (which is already against military rules), therefore I see nothing wrong with prohibiting illicit sex and giving reprimands to those who engage in it.

(c) Married couples have an absolute right to determine the timing and number of children they have. Therefore, no laws can legitimately restrict parental decisions (and of course this particular order does not restrict or make it illegal to become parents, it merely establishes military penalties such as a reprimand in the file for becoming pregnant under certain circumstances).

(d) In a volunteer army such as we have, those married women entering into the military as a career (or single women who stay in the military after marriage) do so knowing the restrictions and requirements of their chosen ambitions. They have a choice in whether they become military personnel. And, in so choosing, are also choosing to obey their commanders. If their conscience leads them to a decision to becomed pregnant while on active duty in a war zone knowing it will result in reprimand, they must be willing to accept that consequences to their career in order to follow their conscience regarding parenthood.

(e) It is not unknown for women who want out of a combat zone to get pregnant on purpose, so I see the commander’s point in giving that behavior consequences.

(f) I think a woman who would become pregnant in this situation is very irresponsible and has no regard for her fellow soliders or her child. Get discharged or transferred to non-combat areas. (Personally I do not think women should be anywhere near combat in the first place. Which would solve this entire issue.)

 

[tjm190]

The Armed forces restricts freedoms that impede its ability to do its job. The right to conceive is one of those freedoms.

 

[NCSue]

With regard to your point about illicit sex being prohibited by army policy, I’m glad to hear that. I’m more concerned about married couples - and yes, the O.S.V. article did specifically mention that those married couples serving in Iraq were also bound by the policy. As Catholics, we are taught to be open to the possibility of life. Would it not be violating church doctrine to take any measures except NFP to prevent pregnancy?

I’m also aware that not ALL soldiers serving in Iraq are serving in positions of combat. This policy affects them as well.

Also, if the army has set a precedent of removing pregnant soldiers from combat within 24 days of learning of the pregnancy, I wonder about the wisdom of changing this policy now, especially at a time when (ostensibly) we are supposedly beginning to set policy for withdrawing from Iraq.

If the Major General has indeed rescinded his policy, I’m betting it was due to his superiors making it clear that he was to do so. I haven’t seen any source indicating that he has done so, but I’ll be glad to hear it if he did.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. You’ve brought up some excellent issues.

 

[StCsDavid]

I"m more concerned about the military not allowing chaplains to use the phrase “in Jesus name”…but that’s another thread for another time.

 

[1ke]

As Catholics, we are taught to be open to the possibility of life. Would it not be violating church doctrine to take any measures except NFP to prevent pregnancy?

Certainly it would. But, NFP can be used so that’s not an issue. And, moreover, the couple can abstain for that time period just as if they were not deployed in the same vicinity.

 

[1ke]

With regard to your point about illicit sex being prohibited by army policy, I’m glad to hear that.

WASHINGTON — The controversial order punishing pregnancy among troops serving in northern Iraq will cease to exist on Jan. 1 when forces throughout the country begin operating under a new, unified set of regulations, an Army official has confirmed.

With the transformation from Multi-National Force-Iraq to United States Forces-Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in the country, is issuing a comprehensive General Order No. 1, according Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, spokeswoman for Odierno.

It will draw from various orders previously in place but leave out the pregnancy punishments enacted in November by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo.

The decision to drop pregnancy from the list of prohibitions for U.S. soldiers comes less than a week after Stars and Stripes reported on Cucolo’s order.

stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66867

 

[NCSue]

Thank you for that link - to me this is good news.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Here’s my opinion.

(a) The general rescinded this policy after pressure from powers that be so it’s a moot point.

(b) Pregnancy in combat zones would be-- in almost all cases-- the result of illicit sex between personnel not married to each other (which is already against military rules), therefore I see nothing wrong with prohibiting illicit sex and giving reprimands to those who engage in it.

(c) Married couples have an absolute right to determine the timing and number of children they have. Therefore, no laws can legitimately restrict parental decisions (and of course this particular order does not restrict or make it illegal to become parents, it merely establishes military penalties such as a reprimand in the file for becoming pregnant under certain circumstances).

(d) In a volunteer army such as we have, those married women entering into the military as a career (or single women who stay in the military after marriage) do so knowing the restrictions and requirements of their chosen ambitions. They have a choice in whether they become military personnel. And, in so choosing, are also choosing to obey their commanders. If their conscience leads them to a decision to becomed pregnant while on active duty in a war zone knowing it will result in reprimand, they must be willing to accept that consequences to their career in order to follow their conscience regarding parenthood.

(e) It is not unknown for women who want out of a combat zone to get pregnant on purpose, so I see the commander’s point in giving that behavior consequences.

(f) I think a woman who would become pregnant in this situation is very irresponsible and has no regard for her fellow soliders or her child. Get discharged or transferred to non-combat areas. (Personally I do not think women should be anywhere near combat in the first place. Which would solve this entire issue.)

I agree with most of this. However, one thing I want to point out that when one joins the military, as my dad described it, the military owns you. Very literally. He said he had a friend who served with him in Utah, and they went out and got VERY sunburned. His friend had to hide it from his C/O or he could be fined for damaging government property for not taking care of himself.

When you are in the military, the government can tell you not to get pregnant. The military personnel have pledged their full service to country first for their term of service. This is why they are more than worthy of such very high respect. THey forfieted all their rights to serve. This is amazing. Not to mention the incredible danger you would put yourself and your squad members in to be pregnant and in combat. And lets not forget about he child you are bringing with you to war.

 

[puzzleannie]

What do you think about this policy?

there were a couple of threads when this policy, and the back-peddaling done by the army, were published in the news media

I think it is interesting that this issue seems to have united conservatives especially pro-lifers and radical feminists, as immediate outcries were heard from both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t see an issue with this personally. Married couples serving overseas at the same time really shouldn’t be having sex any more than other people should. A woman who is visiting her spouse on leave would, IMO, be very irresponsible to get pregnant at that time - a war zone is not a safe place for pregnancy, not just getting blown up, but the exposure to chemicals, possibly poor nutrition, stress.

Military service is something no one should enter without considering the things they have to give up, and consulting their spouse.

That being said - if a woman comes off her leave pregnant, it could really be an accident, and that should be taken into account. But the CO usually has some room for discretion in such things.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is a** serious moral problem** with this policy of prohibiting and punishing pregnancy by female soldiers. Such a policy can be reasonably anticipated to result in some cases in which a female soldier becomes pregnant, and in order to avoid the penalty, obtains an abortion. So the policy is a type of material cooperation with abortion. The good done by such a policy is outweighed by the harm, so the policy is immoral.

Fortunately, this prohibition and penalty was rescinded and is not currently in effect.
The policy allowed for punishment up to and including court-martial.

 

[1ke]

There is a** serious moral problem** with this policy of prohibiting and punishing pregnancy by female soldiers. Such a policy can be reasonably anticipated to result in some cases in which a female soldier becomes pregnant, and in order to avoid the penalty, obtains an abortion. So the policy is a type of material cooperation with abortion. The good done by such a policy is outweighed by the harm, so the policy is immoral.

If the ban were in effect across the military, this might be a reasonable assumption. But this ban (which again, is moot now) was specifically on personnel in forward positions in particular combat zones.

Military insurance does not cover abortion. Military facilities do not perform abortions. Therefore, access to an abortion would be extremely unlikely in such a situation. The motivation to hide it might be there, but the reality is that abortion is not available and getting leave to go somewhere else to have an abortion is equally unlikely.

In this particular case, I don’t see abortion as being a factor. It has other moral problems, but I don’t think abortion is one of them.

 

[sarahraegraham]

What some people don’t seem to understand (and what the media is apparently deliberately ignoring) is the fact that the policy of forbidding sexual relations and/or the resulting pregnancy while soldiers are in a combat zone is not a new policy. It has been on the books for decades. I also agree with all that 1ke said.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If the ban were in effect across the military, this might be a reasonable assumption. But this ban (which again, is moot now) was specifically on personnel in forward positions in particular combat zones.

Military insurance does not cover abortion. Military facilities do not perform abortions. Therefore, access to an abortion would be extremely unlikely in such a situation. The motivation to hide it might be there, but the reality is that abortion is not available and getting leave to go somewhere else to have an abortion is equally unlikely.

In this particular case, I don’t see abortion as being a factor. It has other moral problems, but I don’t think abortion is one of them.

The third font of morality (circumstances) as well as any type of material cooperation require a judgment of the prudential order to evaluate the good and bad possible consequences and the likelihood that each will occur. So faithful and reasonable Catholics may disagree on the outcome of such a judgment.

But, yes, the likelihood of the possible bad consequences does effect the judgment of the circumstances. So if abortion is extremely unlikely in the particular circumstances, then the law would not be immoral material cooperation.