Cadets & Pregnancy

[Rotorhead]

It is funny, we have to 2b a female cadet if she becomes pregnant but if your gay it's  OK!.   And yes I know some people think there is a difference but when I asked why we kick female cadets out for pregnancy, I WAS TOLD IT IS A MORALE ISSUE.

Not "funny." No correlation at all.

By the way, did you mean "MORALE or "MORAL?"

[jimmydeanno]

It is funny, we have to 2b a female cadet if she becomes pregnant but if your gay it's  OK!.   And yes I know some people think there is a difference but when I asked why we kick female cadets out for pregnancy, I WAS TOLD IT IS A MORALE ISSUE.

Pregnancy, Marriage, Joining the Military are all actions in which the cadet is participating in adult behavior - and IMO should not be a cadet.  Unfortunately this doesn't prohibit unmarried cadets with children from being cadets - but I think it should.

So, my thoughts about it are that it has nothing to do with morality but the cadets decision to participate in the adult world - so they should be treated accordingly and removed from cadet status.

[Nathan]

It is funny, we have to 2b a female cadet if she becomes pregnant but if your gay it's  OK!.   And yes I know some people think there is a difference but when I asked why we kick female cadets out for pregnancy, I WAS TOLD IT IS A MORALE ISSUE.

Pregnancy, Marriage, Joining the Military are all actions in which the cadet is participating in adult behavior - and IMO should not be a cadet.  Unfortunately this doesn't prohibit unmarried cadets with children from being cadets - but I think it should.

So, my thoughts about it are that it has nothing to do with morality but the cadets decision to participate in the adult world - so they should be treated accordingly and removed from cadet status.

Eh, this is going off-topic, but I think that if that were the case, then the cadet age cut-off would have been made 18. After all, I'm 20. I've smoked a cigar outside of uniform. I could get sued. If I wanted to, I could go to a strip club. I'm in college now. And, legally, I could get married, or join the military and die for my country. Am I less of an adult because I am a cadet (for the next two months, at least)? I COULD do these things, after all. Am I considered a child because I am choosing not to get married, or join the military?

I don't think so. These are all "adult activities", but I like to think I'm a decent cadet and did a lot of good as a cadet in the three years since I became an official adult. Keep in mind that "adulthood" differs greatly by culture. Many countries legally allow "adult" activities by US standards to what we consider "children." Some states allow children to get married at 16 or 17 (with parental consent). And, ironically, one of CAP's missions in cadet programs is to, well, help cadets transition from kid to adult. Wait, except in THAT way, right?

Personally, I'm against kicking cadets out of cadethood due to pregnancy. I used to make the same arguments you did, but after a while, I had to start questioning why I could support someone making a choice (quote unquote) to be gay but not make the choice to have a child, or at least to have sex. It's not really CAP's place to dictate behavior outside of CAP as long as it's not illegal.

And anyone who knows me knows I would be rabidly against lowering the cut-off age for cadethood.

[Strick]

Yes MORALE          Thats what I was told.

[Rotorhead]

If I wanted to, I could go to a strip club.

Don't you?

[Rotorhead]

Yes MORALE          Thats what I was told.

Well, then your post is even more senseless. If it was a "moral" issue, you might have a point.

[lordmonar]

It is funny, we have to 2b a female cadet if she becomes pregnant but if your gay it's  OK!.   And yes I know some people think there is a difference but when I asked why we kick female cadets out for pregnancy, I WAS TOLD IT IS A MORALE ISSUE.

For the record.

We no longer kick out female cadets for getting pregnant.....we have not since 2001.

[swamprat86]

We no longer kick out female cadets for getting pregnant.....we have not since 2001.

According to CAPR35-3, it is still automatic termination of cadet membership.

SECTION A - CADETS
3. Causes To Terminate Cadet Membership:
a. Automatic Loss of Membership:
(1) Reaching 21st birthday. National Headquarters
will automatically transfer cadets to senior status when the
cadets leach their 21st birthdays (unless membership expires
during the same month).
(2) Marriage.
(3) Joining the active duty Armed Forces. The term
"active duty Armed Forces" does not include members in the
National Guard or Reserves who are not on extended active
duty.
(4) Payment of any kind made by bad check to
National Headquarters if such check is not redeemed within 60
days of proper notification.
(5) Failure to maintain a satisfactory academic school
record.
(6) Loss of the status "admitted for permanent
residence" by an alien member other than by acquiring
citizenship to the U.S.
(7) Failure to renew.
(8 ) Voluntary resignation.
(9) Pregnancy

[Ned]

Pregnancy, Marriage, Joining the Military are all actions in which the cadet is participating in adult behavior - and IMO should not be a cadet.  Unfortunately this doesn't prohibit unmarried cadets with children from being cadets - but I think it should.

So, my thoughts about it are that it has nothing to do with morality but the cadets decision to participate in the adult world - so they should be treated accordingly and removed from cadet status.

Slightly off topic, but . . .

Of course, neither marriage before age 18 or parental status are disqualifying for cadet membership.

Nor should they be.

The whole notion that seniors are "adults" and cadets are "children" is false.  The concepts of "childhood" and "cadethood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.

I was a married ROTC cadet (I was 27 and in grad school).  We also had our first child before I was commissioned.  Clearly Uncle Sam doesn't care too much if his cadets are married or not; or if they have children as long as they benefit from the instruction and are qualified to serve.

Because cadets are military students, who may or may not be above the age of majority in their particular location.

And there is nothing about marital or parental status that affects a person's ability to learn.

[Ned]

According to CAPR35-3, it is still automatic termination of cadet membership.

See the KB:

Pregnancy is no longer a cause for automatic termination of membership. An early change (Change 2 dated 1 Jul 1985) to CAPR 35-3 Membership Termination added pregnancy as {paragraph 3a(9)} one of the reasons for automatic loss of membership by cadets, but that is no longer the case.

The policy was changed by the National Board in August 2001 when the Board approved a recommendation to remove pregnancy as a cause for automatic termination (see below).

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, sub-paragraph (2) Marriage—add the language "after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, sub-paragraph (9) Pregnancy— delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3.

And yes, it appears that they never got around to posting an ICL or change.

[Rotorhead]

Of course, neither marriage before age 18 or parental status are disqualifying for cadet membership.

So are you saying the reg quoted above is no longer effective? Because if it is, then your statement is wrong.

ETA: Okay, added above. Got it.

[MIKE]

Topics split.

[Eclipse]

If I wanted to, I could go to a strip club. I'm in college now. And, legally, I could get married, or join the military and die for my country. Am I less of an adult because I am a cadet (for the next two months, at least)? I COULD do these things, after all. Am I considered a child because I am choosing not to get married, or join the military?

Yes, while in a CAP uniform.

BTW - Most 20 year old college students believe they are adults, and around 30 realize they weren't.

When do you actually become an "adult"?  Hard to say for sure, but I would posit its sometime after there is anything left you can't do based on age.  I would also put forth that legal "adult" status is different from maturity.

I know plenty of young people who are mature and capable of making good decisions, but that doesn't make them adults, regardless of their ability to vote, enlist, or drink.

And the reality of the situation is that, on the mean, most people into their mid 20's have fewer responsibilities and more life flexibility than the average "adult" by normal standards.  That flexibility allows them the leeway to make poor decisions, or "try out" risky behaviors they would never consider into their 30's.  That, in turn, is why insurance companies, credit agencies, and similar reserve adult status for people 25 or even older in some cases.

[RiverAux]

Gee, its only been 8 years and they haven't managed to write a one-sentence ICL?  Guess they weren't really that serious about it. 

[Ned]

Gee, its only been 8 years and they haven't managed to write a one-sentence ICL?  Guess they weren't really that serious about it. 

Or they weren't very serious about throwing out cadets who became a parent.

Or both.   

It always did seem kind of odd that we would terminate a rape victim because she had the further misfortune to become pregnant.

I'm glad we fixed that.

[Nathan]

If I wanted to, I could go to a strip club. I'm in college now. And, legally, I could get married, or join the military and die for my country. Am I less of an adult because I am a cadet (for the next two months, at least)? I COULD do these things, after all. Am I considered a child because I am choosing not to get married, or join the military?

Yes, while in a CAP uniform.

First, if that were true, then our program would be a complete failure at preparing cadets for adulthood and "the real world."

Second, it was more linked to the pregancy thing being related to adulthood being an invalid argument. The truth is that if a male cadet and a female cadet had sex and it resulted in pregnancy, the male cadet would be free to continue through the cadet program while the female cadet would be forced to leave because of her biological make-up. In fact, the male cadet can freely admit to the entire squadron that he is the father of the child, and he can STILL be a cadet. The mother gets tossed out because, well, it's hard to hide pregnancy. THAT is ridiculous. It seems that the only way around that is for the mother to have an abortion before anyone notices the bun in the oven, and that doesn't really seem like something we should be encouraging, even implicitly.

[RiverAux]

(4) Payment of any kind made by bad check to
National Headquarters if such check is not redeemed within 60
days of proper notification.

Stinks to be a cadet whose parents can't balance a checkbook....

[smj58501]

If I wanted to, I could go to a strip club.

Don't you?

Table dances are a bit much to budget for on the average cadet income.

[Cecil DP]

Bottom Line to me is that pregnancy is a normal and natural body function.

[Eclipse]

Bottom Line to me is that pregnancy is a normal and natural body function.

Not for 15 year olds.

Actually, scratch that.  Obviously if a 15yro gets pregnant, the plumbing is working.  Which is the problem.  The undeniable, fundamental, "right" of a 15 year old to use that plumbing has skewed the way we teach our children about responsibility.

"Its ok, just be 'safe'"

The results of the pregnancy are not a natural part of the life of anyone under 21, and rare is the high school or even college-age person fully capable and ready for the massive weight of responsibility that comes with raising a child

[hatentx]

I am glad someone else said what about the father.  While I understand the reasoning behind having the Regs cover automatic removal it is a bit simple.  While going on Active Duty and such are logical what about things that are unbecoming of a Cadet, or SM by that matter.  So the Cadet is 18 and becomes a stripper?  Would that be someone we would still want around in our organization?  Or a 28 year old SM joins the KKK.  While I am not passing judgment I am just bringing up the fact that we are willing, or were, to removes someone for being pregnant or not paying their dues on time or failing to do well academically?  So if I was a c/Lt Col and looking at making me c/ Col and I am 19 and in college working 2 jobs while in school and doing CAP and find myself unable to keep up with school and work am I to lose my Cadet status because I had to drop out of College for a semester?  I understand the thought was for Middle and High School students but as the Regs state I can make that an issue.  The legalism is ridiculous!!  I am Active Duty and see it but there is a bit of a difference between Active Duty and CAP

[Eclipse]

FYI - CAP was willing to remove a cadet for being pregnant, that is no longer the case, but people keep arguing like it is.
No matter that some of us might have agreed with the policy, pregnancy is no longer grounds for termination.

Stripping is not illegal, neither is membership in the KKK, unless the situations were brought into the realm of CAP, there's not much we could do about it. 

Bounce a check or don't pay your membership dues?  Of course you're out, we all are.

As to the other examples, pretty much yes.  Academics are certainly grounds for termination, with no filter on the grade.
The only logical reason why a cadet would allow his grades to slip, or take time off college for CAP would be that he his right at Spaatz and getting close to aging out, and even then its a judgment call as to whether its a good idea.  Otherwise, no reasonable commander would not not allow for a CAP hiatus in favor of school, which is how it should be.
Ultimately, a Cadet's grades and GPA are going to be more important than Spaatz, even if he if aiming at a military career, because in most case, by college age, CAP has done all it can for a cadet, military or otherwise.

And this brings us back to "DOE" in that cadets are not adults in the eyes of CAP, and until that changes, you can make all the impassioned, logical, idiosyncratic, 1%-example arguments about how unfair that is, and it won't change anything.

[Nathan]

The results of the pregnancy are not a natural part of the life of anyone under 21, and rare is the high school or even college-age person fully capable and ready for the massive weight of responsibility that comes with raising a child

They're completely natural. Just because you personally disagree with the choice doesn't counteract that it is both legal and "natural" for the teenager to have a kid. There are some countries where that's NORMAL. It's our society that doesn't help teenaged mothers along that sets the "natural" boundary. Teenaged mothers are chastised, seen as immoral, sometimes denied jobs, etc... our society simply deems that a fifteen year old is too young. But that's not always the case.

Regardless, it is NOT the job of CAP to decide that a fifteen year old doing something completely legal is skirting moral responsibility and is "not ready." I would imagine that if ANYONE was ready for the responsibilities of the real world, it would be the cadets who got enough out of CAP to want to stick with it after having a child.

Look at it this way. A cadet can take as many classes as he or she wants to, as long as they keep their grades up. If they are DEMONSTRABABLY failing at their outside responsibilities, we don't keep them in CAP. With pregnant cadets, we aren't even giving them the chance; we're just assuming that they can't deal with it, despite the fact that we don't know the circumstances behind the pregnancy, the support of the family, or even whether the cadet is planning on aborting or not. It is simply not CAP's business.

Until we find a way to hold the fathers equally responsible for the pregnancy, the regulation is sexist and inappropriate to CAP's goals. Our job is to help build the youth in our program, and tossing them out when they need that training the most is irresponsible of us.

[Nathan]

FYI - CAP was willing to remove a cadet for being pregnant, that is no longer the case, but people keep arguing like it is.
No matter that some of us might have agreed with the policy, pregnancy is no longer grounds for termination.

True, but it's still being discussed... hence the purpose of this thread...

So long as the regs are current, the option is still on the table. And regardless, it is still probably a good idea to cover whether or not pregnancy SHOULD be enforced grounds for termination. Those situations are difficult to handle, so how do you handle it when you find out one of your cadets is pregnant?

[Eclipse]

Regardless, it is NOT the job of CAP to decide that a fifteen year old doing something completely legal is skirting moral responsibility and is "not ready." I would imagine that if ANYONE was ready for the responsibilities of the real world, it would be the cadets who got enough out of CAP to want to stick with it after having a child.

Actually it is, and interesting that you picked 15.

Having a child at 15 is illegal in 46 states based on the age of consent, and even under 18 in several states.

[Eclipse]

So long as the regs are current, the option is still on the table. And regardless, it is still probably a good idea to cover whether or not pregnancy SHOULD be enforced grounds for termination. Those situations are difficult to handle, so how do you handle it when you find out one of your cadets is pregnant?

So, you just ignore the ICL that changed things for the sake of continuing the argument?

Since its no longer grounds for termination, its no longer any of CAP's business, outside the practical issues of any excused absences from CAP and/or requests for medical deferment of PT.

[davidsinn]

So long as the regs are current, the option is still on the table. And regardless, it is still probably a good idea to cover whether or not pregnancy SHOULD be enforced grounds for termination. Those situations are difficult to handle, so how do you handle it when you find out one of your cadets is pregnant?

So, you just ignore the ICL that changed things for the sake of continuing the argument?

What ICL? I think it was pointed out that although the NB voted on it they never acted on it. Thus the reg stands as is.

[O-Rex]

I think this is one of those things that borrows from the service academies, however they extend it to both genders, i.e., if you have a child, regardless of gender, you're out.  The implications to a female cadet are obvious, and for the male, the academies consider the financial obligations interfering with the pursuit of a Military Education.  Also, you cannot be married cadet in the SA's either. 

For argument's sake, moral/legal issues aside, consider the complications of pregnancy and cadets:

1. A PT waiver for pregnancy?

2. You are at an activity (even a local one) and your pregnant Cadet goes into premature labor, miscarries or has some other pregnancy-related complication.  I'd hate to be the one to call a parent "Can you please pick up your daughter?  She is unable to continue today's activities due to morning sickness." Let's not even get into liability issues.  Professional CAPTALK debaters can flame me ad-nauseum, but I don't need or want to deal with it, and the CAP powers-that-be who write the rules tend to agree.

It simply just doesn't fit into the 'rigorous activity' of cadet life. 

Let's keep this in perspective: when all is said and done the reality is that a pregnant teenaged girl has more immediate pressing issues than pursuing CAP (and personally, I would extend that to the teenaged boy who got her pregnant, if it IS a teenaged boy...) 

(Fellow parents, nod your heads in unison.)

Eclipse- I really love your line "Most 20 year old college students believe they are adults, and around 30 realize they weren't."   

I was a 20 year old Army NCO on my second overseas deployment who believed I was an adult, and around 40 realized I wasn't.   

[Flying Pig]

Ned.

If Im not mistaken, in CA isn't it illegal for minors to even have sex, even if they are both minors?  Id have to look that one up.

I think the whole idea behind terminating the membership of a cadet/parent was that the kid now has other issues to deal with besides getting on encampment staff or going to NCOS or participating in CAP.  I think many will say "well, its not your life"  No, but having 2 kids, I could easily tell a cadet that they will have other things to deal with.    Next thing you know we'll be providing child care at encampment.  However, It doesnt seem ike this is wide spread though...thankfully, but I imagine it does come up. 
Personally, Im surprised having children in itself doesn't DQ someone from cadet membership.  Just my opinion.  Now a rape victim who decided to keep the child, etc. the 1 in a million chance we'd hav to deal with that, OK....she could stay.
As a Sq Commander or DCC having 16 yr old cadets Chris and Stacy show up with their kids isn't the idea Im looking for.  Sorry, some of out here still think its wrong.

[Eclipse]

So long as the regs are current, the option is still on the table. And regardless, it is still probably a good idea to cover whether or not pregnancy SHOULD be enforced grounds for termination. Those situations are difficult to handle, so how do you handle it when you find out one of your cadets is pregnant?

So, you just ignore the ICL that changed things for the sake of continuing the argument?

What ICL? I think it was pointed out that although the NB voted on it they never acted on it. Thus the reg stands as is.

That's easy to say in an academic discussion like this, but we all know that the NB and NEC have powers that make their votes effective immediately, and precedence has shown that these votes are enforced regardless of the ancillary requirements to update docs, mandatory expiration of ICLs, etc.

I seriously doubt a termination for pregnancy would stand the MARB, though I will grant you that its amazing that this hasn't been addressed in nearly eight years.

[swamprat86]

I seriously doubt a termination for pregnancy would stand the MARB, though I will grant you that its amazing that this hasn't been addressed in nearly eight years.

This may show how few instances have occured or been reported in the eight years.  I will have you know that as a commander I submitted a 2b for this reason in 2004 because I was following the regs and it was processed without an issue.

[Eclipse]

I seriously doubt a termination for pregnancy would stand the MARB, though I will grant you that its amazing that this hasn't been addressed in nearly eight years.

This may show how few instances have occurred or been reported in the eight years.  I will have you know that as a commander I submitted a 2b for this reason in 2004 because I was following the regs and it was processed without an issue.

Was it challenged?  If not, who would notice?  The Unit CC is the signer for a flight or squadron, with the Group CC being the approving authority if there is a challenge, and the MARB is the next level of appeal.  If she accepted the termination,
then there was no one to read the form after it was processed.

[swamprat86]

No, it wasn't challenged.  She was pretty much a ghost by the time I found out about it anyway.  She wasn't returning my emails or messages.

[Rotorhead]

I seriously doubt a termination for pregnancy would stand the MARB, though I will grant you that its amazing that this hasn't been addressed in nearly eight years.

This may show how few instances have occured or been reported in the eight years.  I will have you know that as a commander I submitted a 2b for this reason in 2004 because I was following the regs and it was processed without an issue.

Does that means you hadn't seen the ICL?

[O-Rex]

Obviously a 2B has negative connotations, but in such cases, shouldn't there be the CAP equivalent of an "administrative discharge?"

What if the female cadet later wants to rejoin as a senior?

[Rotorhead]

Obviously a 2B has negative connotations, but in such cases, shouldn't there be the CAP equivalent of an "administrative discharge?"

What if the female cadet later wants to rejoin as a senior?

Although the ICL says we don't 2b for pregnancy, I am curious why we would in the first place.

[swamprat86]

Since there currently isn't an ICL listed for this, was there any evidence that there was then?

I know that when the board approves things they are implemented, but there still needs to be a general dissemination of information other than reading the minutes.  I wasn't a commander in 2001 so I didn't tend to pay a whole lot of attention to the board minutes.  When I did this 2b in 2004 how far back should I have gone in the board meetings on top of reading the regs before I made sure there wasn't any changes I missed?  Isn't that the purpose of have published regs?  Otherwise just get rid of them and make the minutes the official publication and resource.

[Cecil DP]

I think this is one of those things that borrows from the service academies, however they extend it to both genders, i.e., if you have a child, regardless of gender, you're out.

Actually the Academies give a maternity leave to a female cadet to have the baby and make arrangements for an adoption or termination of the pregnancy. The problem is not the preganancy, but the prohibition of cadets having a "dependent" prior to commissioning. The cadet is than readmitted in the following term.

[lordmonar]

Well you are opening up another can of worms with this one.

NHQ is very negligent in maintaining the regulations in a timely manner.

In 2004 National should have kicked the 2b back....but of course they may have been looking at the same regulation as the rest of us and not going to KB to find the answer.

On that issue you did due diligence so I would not worry too much.

Of all the thing in CAP that really peeve me this is the biggest one.  How can we expect our field commanders to do their jobs properly if higher head quarters are not doing theirs properly?

[Sleepwalker]

   I was 19 when my daughter was born.  Between college classes, raising a child (not to mention being married), and holding three part-time jobs I barely had time to sleep - much less participate in any extra-curricular activities.  It about killed me to just finish school!   

P.S.> If there are any young adults reading this post, I highly recommend that you go to college first, get a carreer and then get married (in that order).  Although everything turned out OK for us, it was nearly impossible to succeed.   

[Ned]

Ned.

If Im not mistaken, in CA isn't it illegal for minors to even have sex, even if they are both minors?  Id have to look that one up.

Let me give you the classic lawyer answer -- "It depends."

While normally even 17 year old Californians enaging in voluntary sex is a crime of some sort (usually a low level misdemeanor that is rarely if ever prosecuted), there is no crime at all if the participants are married or emancipated.  (Both marriage and emancipation require some sort of judicial action and/or parental consent.)

But just remember the practical considerations for a poor squadron commander.

How do you prove that a cadet is or was ever pregnant if she doesn't want you to know?

(Medical records are confidential by law.  "She looked pregnant to me" is probably not very pursuasive until the last trimester.  "I heard she was pregnant and had a baby during that leave of absence she had last summer" similarly is pure gossip and also not very pursuasive.  Ordering DNA testing of the cadet and a child is probably not realistic.   )

Not to mention Nathan's point that a pregnancy termination policy does seem to encourage abortion in young people who value their CAP membership.

I think the whole idea behind terminating the membership of a cadet/parent was that the kid now has other issues to deal with besides getting on encampment staff or going to NCOS or participating in CAP.  I think many will say "well, its not your life"  No, but having 2 kids, I could easily tell a cadet that they will have other things to deal with.    Next thing you know we'll be providing child care at encampment. 

Yeah . . . "It's not your life." 

As a squadron commander you don't get to choose whether the cadet goes to college, gets a good job, or who they select as a life partner.

Why should you get to throw a cadet out of what may be the only positive thing she might have going in her life?

Sure, I agree that most cadets who find themselves pregnant do indeed have better things to do with their Tuesday nights than drill and ceremonies at their squadron.  I'd wager that compartively few will want to actively participate in CAP.

But for the life of me, I cannot figure out why that isn't her choice, made in consultation with her family and loved ones.


As a practical matter, I agree that this is a very rare situation.  Most unit commanders will never have to deal with it. 

(And child care for encampment is not a bad idea.  There are a whole lot of young seniors who would benefit from such a thing.)

[swamprat86]

(And child care for encampment is not a bad idea.  There are a whole lot of young seniors who would benefit from such a thing.)

I thought encampment was child care?   

[jimmydeanno]

Ned,

My personal experience with this situation tells me that this is not a good thing.

I posted this in the "Single Parent - Cadet" thread some time ago...

This situation came up in my "old squadron."  There was a young woman (14) who had 2 children (oldest was 3) and was un-married.  Since the regulation says "pregnant" (the change isn't in the regulation posted) and "married," it made no stipulation to "single" and "already born."  We contacted the national legal office, and were told that, "We can not decide what is moral and immoral in today's society," and were "required" to accept this cadet's membership application.

This leads me to a few points.

1. What is the purpose of the membership board if we are "forced" to accept applications?  One could argue in a "non-discriminatory" way that a 14 year old mother of 2 should be focused on other things than participating in CAP.  Therefore making her a "bad fit" for the organization.

2. In my opinion, this "cadet" had already made some HUGE adult choices.  The limitations put on cadet membership, until recently have all pertained to "adult choices," joining the military, pregnancy, marriage, becoming an adult, etc.

3. As a parent (I'm not one), wouldn't you assume that the place you were sending your child was free of "bad influences?"  A 14 year old with 2 children IMO is not a good example to cadets; both male and female.  Isn't there an expectation that the 'leadership' protect the environment of CAP from such bad influences?

IMO, parents that are cadet aged should not be allowed to participate in the CAP cadet program.  IMO, if they want to be in CAP, they can join at 18 as an adult, since they've already chosen to make adult decisions.

[Un]Fortunately, I can say that my thoughts about this have not changed.  I remember many parents expressing their opinions about this situation and that they would not want their children exposed to that type of behavior or influence. 

Fortunately, these situations are rare and like has been said, most squadron CCs will never have to deal with the situation.

[Eclipse]

Every CC (and parent) who didn't see that posting before just puckered a bit after they read it.  

Frankly, if there's a deterrent to teen sex, a 14 year old with two kids has to be right up there.

[Ned]

A late response to your previous posts.

This situation came up in my "old squadron."  There was a young woman (14) who had 2 children (oldest was 3) and was un-married.

Counting on my fingers, it appears that this child was raped when she was 10 years old.

(You're not seriously saying that 10 year-olds make "adult decisions" to have sex, are you?)

Sadly, this is the kind of case I see far too often in my line of work.

This child is the victim of a horrible crime.  She should be cared for, not feared.

  Since the regulation says "pregnant" (the change isn't in the regulation posted) and "married," it made no stipulation to "single" and "already born."  We contacted the national legal office, and were told that, "We can not decide what is moral and immoral in today's society," and were "required" to accept this cadet's membership application.

This leads me to a few points.

1. What is the purpose of the membership board if we are "forced" to accept applications? 

An excellent question.  Membership boards are not optional, but far too few unit commanders realize this.

Membership boards have wide discretion on whom to recommend for CAP membership, but they are not free to invidiously discriminate.  IOW, if the only reason the membership board declines to recommend an individual is an impermissible reason (like race, religion, crime victim status, etc), then the unit may well be "forced" to accept an othewise acceptible applicant.  That seems reasonable enough.  The alternative (letting units reject qualified applicants for improper reasons) is chaos.

2. In my opinion, this "cadet" had already made some HUGE adult choices.  The limitations put on cadet membership, until recently have all pertained to "adult choices," joining the military, pregnancy, marriage, becoming an adult, etc.

This is normally where I make my "cadethood and childhood are unrelated, so don't talk about 'adult' vs 'child' when discussing cadets" argument.

But I don't think I need to here.  I honestly cannot believe that fifth graders make "adult choices" about sexual activity.  Sadly, they just get molested and raped.

3. As a parent (I'm not one), wouldn't you assume that the place you were sending your child was free of "bad influences?"  A 14 year old with 2 children IMO is not a good example to cadets; both male and female.  Isn't there an expectation that the 'leadership' protect the environment of CAP from such bad influences?

Somehow, I think that young lady has been victimized enough without us calling her a "bad influence" on our cadets. 

Did you seriously think there was some risk that other 14 year olds would engage in dangerous behaviors simply because the applicant had two children?  I would actually have expected quite the opposite.  I knew a CAP member that was disfigured from a burn accident.  While it didn't dominate our relationship, privately it did remind me to take extra care in similar situations.

[ . . .]
[Un]Fortunately, I can say that my thoughts about this have not changed.  I remember many parents expressing their opinions about this situation and that they would not want their children exposed to that type of behavior or influence. 

This is what we call a "teachable moment," both for the parents and CAP members.

Earlier in the thread, we might have assumed that the "rape victim" argument was such a rare occurance as to essentially serve to cloud the discussion rather than illuminate it.

But here it is.

A 10 year old is sexually assaulted and a child results.  This victim, more than the average high school student will benefit from a structured leadership program that will also encourage her to avoid drugs and alcohol while simultaneously giving her the benefit of Moral Leadership (or character development - whatever we are calling it this week.)

Does it make any sense to exclude her from CAP because of an unproven notion that she might somehow infect the other cadets with some sort of bad behaviors?


Thank Goodness, most of us will never have to face this kind of situation.

[jimmydeanno]

(You're not seriously saying that 10 year-olds make "adult decisions" to have sex, are you?)

Ned, please see this article. It is about 5th graders who, when left unsupervised in a classroom, had sex with each other in front of the rest of their classmates - posting other students to look out for the teacher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

or...

How about this clip from one of those daytime talk shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9llClgTqY
That one is a 15 year old girl who is trying everything in her power to get pregnant.

or...

This article from TIME regarding teens, all under 16 that formed a "pregnancy pact.": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

While an adult decision would be not to have children at that young of an age - a decision was made in this case, multiple times. 

This child is the victim of a horrible crime.  She should be cared for, not feared.

Then she should get professional help, something that I don't think any CAP squadron is equiped to handle, nor should have to.  I was/am not afraid of this girl - but why do parents force their children not to hang out with gangbangers, drug users, criminals, etc?  Because they are a bad influence on the behaviors of their own children.

An excellent question.  Membership boards are not optional, but far too few unit commanders realize this.

Membership boards have wide discretion on whom to recommend for CAP membership, but they are not free to invidiously discriminate.  IOW, if the only reason the membership board declines to recommend an individual is an impermissible reason (like race, religion, crime victim status, etc), then the unit may well be "forced" to accept an othewise acceptible applicant.  That seems reasonable enough.  The alternative (letting units reject qualified applicants for improper reasons) is chaos.

I would not call denying membership in a youth organization to a child with two children to be ividiously discriminate.  The MB would not be denying membership to an individual based on the items listed in CAPs non-discrimination policy, but would be denying membership to someone who, in many states, has a pattern of criminal activity.

We have policies that enable commanders to kick cadets out for missing three meetings in a row, or doing poorly in school.  Yet we can't deny membership for situations far graver.  We don't allow cadets of opposite sex to be in a room together alone at NCSAs (not sleeping arrangements), etc because of what "may" happen.  Yet we are all for someone who has already exhibited that they are willing to participate in those behaviors EDIT:we don't want to join.joining.

Did you seriously think there was some risk that other 14 year olds would engage in dangerous behaviors simply because the applicant had two children?

Because she had two children, no.  Because of her attitude towards her decisions, the possibility of her actively trying to get one of the other cadets into a comprimising situation, yes.  Of course in this situation everyone reading lacks the personal interaction with this girl.

I would actually have expected quite the opposite.  I knew a CAP member that was disfigured from a burn accident.  While it didn't dominate our relationship, privately it did remind me to take extra care in similar situations.

We aren't talking about someone who lost their fingers in a snowblower, or had a piece of hot metal get in their eye from welding.  People don't actively try to repeat those behaviors.  Many teens do when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

All over the country we can see that bad decision making is contageous; from the continuing crime rates in inner cities, to the continuing trends in teen pregnancy, gang violence, etc.

Thank Goodness, most of us will never have to face this kind of situation.

Amen to that.

[O-Rex]

I think this is one of those things that borrows from the service academies, however they extend it to both genders, i.e., if you have a child, regardless of gender, you're out.

Actually the Academies give a maternity leave to a female cadet to have the baby and make arrangements for an adoption or termination of the pregnancy. The problem is not the preganancy, but the prohibition of cadets having a "dependent" prior to commissioning. The cadet is than readmitted in the following term.

NO KIDDING. . . .

Wow, times have changed.

Reminds me of the movie 'The General's Daughter'  which was also a fantastic book.

[JoeTomasone]

I was 19 when my daughter was born.  Between college classes, raising a child (not to mention being married), and holding three part-time jobs I barely had time to sleep - much less participate in any extra-curricular activities.  It about killed me to just finish school!   

P.S.> If there are any young adults reading this post, I highly recommend that you go to college first, get a carreer and then get married (in that order).  Although everything turned out OK for us, it was nearly impossible to succeed.

It's not that easy when you do it the right way these days...   I can't imagine being a teenage father in this economy.

[Nathan]

Ned, please see this article. It is about 5th graders who, when left unsupervised in a classroom, had sex with each other in front of the rest of their classmates - posting other students to look out for the teacher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

or...

How about this clip from one of those daytime talk shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9llClgTqY
That one is a 15 year old girl who is trying everything in her power to get pregnant.

or...

This article from TIME regarding teens, all under 16 that formed a "pregnancy pact.": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

While an adult decision would be not to have children at that young of an age - a decision was made in this case, multiple times.

I'm going to go out on a limb with the psych training I've had so far and state pretty confidently that most prepubescent humans that engage in sexual behavior generally have some sort of abuse or trauma in their background. I don't think I need to go into the specifics.

Regardless, there is a reason that these situations are news. They are RARE. They don't happen enough to be anything other than offshoots of the main idea.

However, if what you were trying to prove is that it is completely natural for children to experience sexual situations, then there really isn't any reason at all for us to worry about having teenaged mother cadets in CAP. After all, it IS normal, right? If it's going on anyway, there isn't much really to worry about "protecting" the cadets from.

Then she should get professional help, something that I don't think any CAP squadron is equiped to handle, nor should have to.  I was/am not afraid of this girl - but why do parents force their children not to hang out with gangbangers, drug users, criminals, etc?  Because they are a bad influence on the behaviors of their own children.

As I've said in the past, it is NOT CAP's job to pander to the intolerant so long as the member in question is within regulations, whether the cadet is a Muslim, African American, gay, or a teenaged mother.

And you're right. It's not CAP's job to provide professional help for this cadet. Nor are we being asked to. Never has it been CAP's mission to provide psychological care to cadets, so I don't understand why we would assume we would "have to" just because we have someone in the squadron who needs it. I'm sure that many squadrons have cadets who need some sort of professional help. But it CAP's missions, AE, ES, and CP, are NOT affected by this one member. We continue doing the missions that we are assigned to do, that people JOIN to do, and we leave the professional help to the professionals.

I would not call denying membership in a youth organization to a child with two children to be ividiously discriminate.  The MB would not be denying membership to an individual based on the items listed in CAPs non-discrimination policy, but would be denying membership to someone who, in many states, has a pattern of criminal activity.

I most certainly would. The criminal activity is not one that CAP recognizes, and there is no regulation prohibiting cadet mothers from joining. If the applicant is otherwise qualified to be a cadet, it would be up to the commander to provide a much better reason than, "The cadet is a mother/gay/black/Muslim/whatever." Otherwise, it's clearly discrimination.

We have policies that enable commanders to kick cadets out for missing three meetings in a row, or doing poorly in school.  Yet we can't deny membership for situations far graver.  We don't allow cadets of opposite sex to be in a room together alone at NCSAs (not sleeping arrangements), etc because of what "may" happen.  Yet we are all for someone who has already exhibited that they are willing to participate in those behaviors EDIT:we don't want to join.joining.

Big difference. These are things that happen while the cadet is a member of CAP, which is where I imagine the original logic for the pregnancy rule came from. We will not be responsible for cadets having sex at a CAP activity, or for failing school while in CAP, or for failing to participate in CAP activities, but we have no responsibility anyway for what the cadet chose to do BEFORE joining CAP. And with the current lack of enforcement for the pregnancy 2b, we're furthering ourselves from MOST of the cadets' personal lives as it is. It's not our business so long as it does not affect CAP's mission.

Because she had two children, no.  Because of her attitude towards her decisions, the possibility of her actively trying to get one of the other cadets into a comprimising situation, yes.  Of course in this situation everyone reading lacks the personal interaction with this girl.

Two far different situations. You cannot simply assume that a cadet is promiscuous by the fact that she has two children. As you said, we don't know the context for the pregnancy. She could have been raped, and applying a blanket ban to all pregnant cadets because they MIGHT be promiscuous is a mistake.

Under that logic, should we ban all senior members who have children? After all, they DID have sex with SOMEONE. They might pass it on to the cadets, right?

Any cadet or senior member, regardless of parental status, can be promiscuous and "morally dangerous" to the cadets. And those situations we handle separately as they come up. But pregnancy is not a good indicator of that. In fact, I would imagine that a 14 year old who already has two kids isn't exactly going to be recommending it to other cadets, or taking any more risks...

[jimmydeanno]

Under that logic, should we ban all senior members who have children? After all, they DID have sex with SOMEONE. They might pass it on to the cadets, right?

That's not even the same comparison.  You are talking about an adult participating in adult things while acting in an adult capacity.

We (CAP) even makes it even stranger with their marriage clauses.  Under 18 you can be a cadet and married.  18+ you must be a senior.  What is the reasoning for that?  Maybe because they've decided to engage in the adult world?  So the married 18+ person with children needs to be a senior, but the unmarried 18+ person with children can stay a cadet.  Nice.

But what I was trying to "prove," is that young children DO participate consentually in things that would make Hugh Hefner blush - they make a concious decision to do these things.  Not all cases of teen pregnancy have to do with someone forcing them to do these things. 

However, I think the better point that has been brought up is the criminal status of the action.  While it may be socially "normal" in other countries or areas of the world, we decided that as a civilized nation it is not acceptable for 15 year olds to have children, have sex, etc.  Just as we have decided that alcohol should not be consumed by those under 21 even though many European nations allow consumption at any age.

With that in mind, if we as an organization are willing to allow cadets to participate in criminal activity and not have it fall under the "be of good moral character" exception in the membership requirements - what other criminal behavior are we willing to accept?  Assault? Armed Robbery?  Murder?  Don't you consider the commitance of criminal behavior to be "morally wrong?"

The court system of the United States seems to think that youth are capable of making adult decisions by their allowance of minors being able to be charged as adults so why can't we?

Again, all of this is so rare that there's probably only a few times a decade that someone thinks of joining as a teen with kids...

Any cadet or senior member, regardless of parental status, can be promiscuous and "morally dangerous" to the cadets.

And once that "morally dangerous" comes out membership is able to be terminated.  So why can't we deny membership to someone who has already proven - prior to joining - that they exhibit those traits?

[Eclipse]

Socially "normal" in some other country is irrelevant here, just as most other countries could care less what we consider "normal" (as long as we sell them our blue jeans and Britney albums).

Teen pregnancy, despite the Maury Povich show, is not "normal", nor is it right (there, I said it).

[LtCol057]

True, teen pregnancy is not "normal", but it does happen. It's currently reaching epidemic proportions.  When I was a paramedic, I had a mother of a young girl (not a cadet) cuss me out because I transported her daughter to L&D at the hospital. The mother said "She's not pregnant, she's only 13. She doesn't know what sex it. Her abdominal pain is something she ate."  Guess what? 30 minutes after I got her to L&D, she had a 8lb baby.

Personally, if a female cadet became pregnant by a male cadet, I'd probably strongly encourage both to resign from CAP. That way, if sometime later, they want to come back in, they'd be able to.

[Major Carrales]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

A cadet that brings a child into this world is biologically, legally and morally obligated to care for the child.  CAP becomes secondary to that.

I would suggest a transfer to a patron status, if at all, because all financial, family/cultural and any extra time belongs to their responsibility as a parent.  This makes "participating actively in unit activites" and "attending meeting regularlly" much less significant and "be of service to their Community, State and Nation" now reflects raising a child to be an active and healthy member of the community for the eventual benefit of the State and Nation.

 

[Ned]

Sir, you told us that you were trying to prove that "young people DO participate consensually in things that would make Hugh Hefner blush."

I don't think that really matches up with your real-world example of the 10 year old sexual assault victim, but for the sake of argument let's look at your "proof."

Frankly, it is pretty weak.

In reverse order:

This article from TIME regarding teens, all under 16 that formed a "pregnancy pact.": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

You do know that this was a hoax, right?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5861523.html

Even Time backed off and later wrote that principal that started the rumor resigned and that none of the girls ever confirmed there was such a pact.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863946_1863954,00.html

Your second item of "proof" was

How about this clip from one of those daytime talk shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9llClgTqYThat one is a 15 year old girl who is trying everything in her power to get pregnant.

Dude, you didn't really just rely on a clip from the Maury Show as "proof", did you?

Take a moment a Google "Maury Show" along with any of these words - "scripted", "fake", or "hoax".

Tell us what you find.

This clip is flat out amusing.  The actress playing the "15 year old" looks 20-24 to me.  The actors playing the audience and the mother are not particularly convincing.But if this qualifies as "proof" of your position, you will certainly be well armed to engage in debates about Transvestitie Aliens Who Stole My Husband.

And then there was your first item of "proof";

Ned, please see this article. It is about 5th graders who, when left unsupervised in a classroom, had sex with each other in front of the rest of their classmates - posting other students to look out for the teacher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

You have to admit this is a pretty suspicious story.  While it certainly comes from a mainstream media source (AP), there are no follow-up stories to be found more than a week or so after the event.  For such a media-friendly story, it just fell off the face of the earth.  It is unlikely that there was any sort of trial or serious consequences for the alleged participants without some sort of confirmation.

This suggests to me (fairly experienced in high profile criminal cases and juvenile cases) that either it was wildly overblown by whoever first spoke to the press and/or it was quietly dismissed as unfounded.  There are no quotes or follow-ups from the DA or the courts.  Just quotes from the (elected) sheriff.

Plus, the story seems inconsistent internally.  Most reputable medical authorities suggest that it is highly unlikely that fifth-grader males have even begun puberty, let alone able to function sexually.

Of course, the story does say that the males involved were 12 and 13 -- but what would a 13 year-old be doing in the fifth grade in the first place?  It doesn't make sense.

Bottom line on this one is that I simply don't believe it without some sort of confirmation.  Without names or follow-up, it rates a little bit above "gossip" and "rumor" and somewhat below "reliable and confirmed news story."

But I think we have a more fundamental disagreement.

If you honestly think that a 10 year old girl who gets impregnated during a sexual assault is some sort of vixen with loose morals, we are pretty far apart on this issue.

Let me suggest you take a look at the literature surrounding what the experts call Child Sexual Assault Accommodation Syndrome. (CSAAS)  It helps to explain how children appear to go along with monstrous sex crimes committed upon them.  Children react differently to sexual situations than adults, and their helplessness and lack of resistance often make them appear less credible to adults who simply cannot understand why a 10 year old would engage in sexual behavior unless they really "wanted to."

Here's a quick slide show to get you started: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/slides_archive.pdf

[Ned]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

I'm not sure I understand you here.  How is becoming a parent in any way inconsistent with the Cadet Oath?  I'm not seeing it.

A cadet that brings a child into this world is biologically, legally and morally obligated to care for the child.  CAP becomes secondary to that.

Two things.  First, a pregnant cadet may or may not deliver a child.  Even it she does deliver a healthy child, many teen moms surrender the child for adoption or allow their relatives to serve as the primary care-giver for a period of time.

Second, (and far more importantly) CAP is always going to be "secondary" (or lower) to every single member, cadet or senior, including you and me.  For cadets, CAP is already secondary to school and family.  And a new baby is just more family.  Nothing new here.

BTW, how is this any different than a 23 year old senior who has a baby?  Obviously, CAP is "secondary" to the baby for them as well.  And yet, we are fortunate that countless seniors with youngsters at home continue to volunteer their time to train and mentor cadets.

I would suggest a transfer to a patron status, if at all, because all financial, family/cultural and any extra time belongs to their responsibility as a parent.  This makes "participating actively in unit activites" and "attending meeting regularlly" much less significant and "be of service to their Community, State and Nation" now reflects raising a child to be an active and healthy member of the community for the eventual benefit of the State and Nation.

Like Robert, you may well be correct that a cadet who cares for a child may have little or no time for CAP.  I would expect that most will probably drift away, challenged as you suggest by parental responsiblities.

But that is their decision, not yours.  You don't get to choose their college, career, or life partners.  Why do you think you can toss them out just because you might disagree with their priorities?

 

[Rotorhead]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

I don't believe it says (or even implies) that "CAP must be your first priority in life."

I think you're stretching here.

[Nathan]

That's not even the same comparison.  You are talking about an adult participating in adult things while acting in an adult capacity.

We should probably kick out of cadethood all cadets that go to college, hold a job, own a car, live on their own, watch a rated R film, or who order Big Macs.

You're talking about an adult as defined by CAP, not necessarily the rest of the world. I'm 20, going to be 21 in two months. As I mentioned, I am certainly adult enough to do pretty much anything I'm legally allowed to do, such as smoke, join the military, or whatever. Because I decide not to have a kid makes me less of an adult? A cadet is not any less a cadet when he or she decides to do something "adult" (once again, assuming that this act was a choice). In fact, we EXPECT our cadets to act like adults. Sexuality is not implied, but you can't simply say that once the little tykes grow up that it's time for them to leave the program.

CAP does not stop me from smoking outside of CAP. I'm an adult. I can go to college. I'm an adult. But I can't have a kid? Where does CAP get THAT logic from? Why is having a kid any more adult than anything else I mentioned? Where is that line drawn, and who has the authority to draw it? Hell, I'm legally allowed to have a kid long before I'm allowed to drink...

We (CAP) even makes it even stranger with their marriage clauses.  Under 18 you can be a cadet and married.  18+ you must be a senior.  What is the reasoning for that?  Maybe because they've decided to engage in the adult world?  So the married 18+ person with children needs to be a senior, but the unmarried 18+ person with children can stay a cadet.  Nice.

I don't buy it, mainly because I don't particularly think that marriage should necessarily be a reason to kick a cadet out either. It's a double standard, any way you go, as I said. So the real question is whether or not we should allow any member who decides to participate in "adult activities" (which is essentially whatever the higher ups at CAP seem to think constitutes an "adult action") to continue as cadets. I personally don't think that it's our business what cadets do outside of CAP that they are legally allowed to do, and I CERTAINLY think we should be trying to find LESS reasons to kick kids out of CAP.

But what I was trying to "prove," is that young children DO participate consentually in things that would make Hugh Hefner blush - they make a concious decision to do these things.  Not all cases of teen pregnancy have to do with someone forcing them to do these things. 

Ned covered this already, so I won't go into what he said.

However, like I said, you saying that young children ALREADY participate in these activities is hurting your argument more than helping it. If children are already capable of making these decisions and are doing it anyway (which I highly doubt they are, based upon what I know of child and abnormal psychology), then that means that this is a "normal and natural" behavior as it is, or at least one we can't control. Which means that if it is something we need to deal with, then booting them out of the program isn't the way to do it. It's going to go on whether we like it or not, and kicking a cadet out of the program for making a decision he or she can apparently naturally make against all biological reasoning seems to be fighting a useless battle. If we have an underaged cadet who's smoking outside of CAP, then that isn't reason to kick them out. We simply do what we can to help them make better choices, but other than that, we continue doing the mission we are trained to do. Since there is no "abstinence only" program in CAP, it's outside of our mission parameters.

Regardless, IF this were happening, and IF it were an issue that needed to be dealt with, we should leave the parenting to the parents. It is not our job to decide the guilt or morality of a teenager's pregnancy, because I WILL guarantee you that there are FAR more teenaged and child pregnancies that were not "consensual."

However, I think the better point that has been brought up is the criminal status of the action.  While it may be socially "normal" in other countries or areas of the world, we decided that as a civilized nation it is not acceptable for 15 year olds to have children, have sex, etc.  Just as we have decided that alcohol should not be consumed by those under 21 even though many European nations allow consumption at any age.

Last time I checked, being pregnant was NOT a criminal offense, regardless of age. Sex, in fact, was the crime. We can logically deduce that a teenager had sex in order to get pregnant, sure, but we CANNOT deduce logically that the sex was criminal in the way you think it was. As Ned points out and is supported by all sociological and psychological evidence I've been taught, MOST cases of teen and child pregnancy is NOT consensual in the way you think it is. It's not usually a case of two loving 15 year olds having sex and the girl getting pregnant; it's usually the case that you have some 21-27 year old guy who is a friend of a friend of a friend that this girl thinks she loves and has sex with simply to try to get him to like her. Next thing you know, she's a victim of statutory rape and pregnant with a child. She was the VICTIM of the crime, and you will hear FAR more of those cases than of the former.

So the criminal activity thing doesn't really work unless you're prepared to suggest that we interview all pregnant teenaged girls who want to become CAP cadets and ask them exactly how their pregnancy happened, because we need to know if they committed a misdemeanor or if they were the victim of rape. I really don't see that as a viable option.

With that in mind, if we as an organization are willing to allow cadets to participate in criminal activity and not have it fall under the "be of good moral character" exception in the membership requirements - what other criminal behavior are we willing to accept?  Assault? Armed Robbery?  Murder?  Don't you consider the commitance of criminal behavior to be "morally wrong?"

I think you're going to have a hard time justifying the comparison of assault, armed robbery, and murder to consensual sex between two minors, and even less so with being a rape victim who MAY have acted like she wanted to have sex. I feel morally pretty stable about the gap between those offenses.

And once that "morally dangerous" comes out membership is able to be terminated.  So why can't we deny membership to someone who has already proven - prior to joining - that they exhibit those traits?

They haven't proven anything by being pregnant, merely the fact that they are, in fact, female. As I stated, until you're willing to interview all 12-17 year old girls who want to join up about their sex lives, then it's far better to assume the best in ALL cadets who are interested in helping their country and community through CAP.

A cadet that brings a child into this world is biologically, legally and morally obligated to care for the child.  CAP becomes secondary to that.

A cadet is not obligated to take care of the child in ANY of those ways. A cadet can give up a child for adoption biologically, legally, AND morally.

And CAP becomes secondary to a LOT of things that ARE legally directed, such as school. But we don't simply assume that because a cadet is in school that they are not capable of doing CAP at the same time. By regulation, we wait until they are actually demonstrating a failure to maintain their school grades before we give them the boot. If we kick cadets out simply for being pregnant or being a mother, that is not giving them the same chance we give them in the things they actually ARE legally required to make secondary to CAP. You want to kick a cadet out for being a mother? Wait until child services ends up at their house or something. Until that point, I wouldn't have a problem giving our cadets the benefit of the doubt that if they are willing to show up every week at CAP that they are managing their time well enough. After all, CAP does tend to teach cadets these types of time-management and character-building skills...

[Major Carrales]

Hold on there, bucko, I'm presenting the most tempered position here.  Any person that has a child is beholden to the upbring of that child...not service to CAP.

My point is that you cannot hold a CAP cadet to several elements of the cadet oath if their greater responsibility lies elsewhere.  Attend meeting regulary...who would watch the child, what if they miss umpteen meetings and fall behind? Participate actively in Unit activities...weekend clean ups versus watching your child?  I'm a parent and I have trouble with it.

I suspect, furthermore, that is why members of the military who join as cadets have to transition to senior membership as well.  They can no longer be held to an oath when they have taken an oath or responsibility that superedes it.

Who said anything about tossing them out, picking their college or any of that other wrought?  We are talking about a cadet program, your talking societial problems that that program is not equiped to directly deal with.  Should we provide day-care for cadets with children?  Should we have a special medical catergory for them?  Do we excuse months of absences and apply stresses and pressures that other cadets would get when we know they have a viable excuse...their child?  Would a parent cadet continue?  Would it be a wise decision to even ask them to continue?  Should their parents raise the child for them?  Answer these questions with solutions, add weight to the lofty ideals your proport.

Then you can take the bold tone with me and anyone else.  I would venture to opine that your response to me is under the impression that I find the idea of a pregnant cadet morally repugnant or some other "social" issue.  As if my might lower myself to the wornout socio-political ideas like "LIBERALs" and "CONSERVATIVEs" on this matter.  That I might think a pregnant cadet is somehow "EVIL."  Should you think that, be advised that such a position is ridiculous in this matter en re me. 

I'm coming from a more real position, one where I see 8th graders with children that hardly have time for school much less atheltics, band, academic competition or CAP.  The reality that holding a teen parent to the ideals of the Cadet Oath is not reasonable for the Unit, the Cadet nor the child they bear.

If they can work it out...if one in 100 can work it out...let them try it.  But I still maintain that their first responsibility it to the raising of their child.

[Major Carrales]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

I don't believe it says (or even implies) that "CAP must be your first priority in life."

I think you're stretching here.

An oath is not just "cool words we say together," they expouse a certain since of goal stating and purpose.  Even the Pledge to the Flag is not "just words," it means you are faithful to be a ally to the Flag and all that it stands for.

"I pledge to serve faithfully in the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program and that I will attend meetings regularly, participate actively in unit activities, obey my officers, wear my uniform properly and advance my education and training rapidly to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state and nation."

Ideally, the above is what cadets are supposed to do as cadets.  They are called in the first line to be "faithful" to CAP.  How can that be done if their new responsibility is to their child?  It would be making them say something they ideally cannot and should not be called to do.

Regular meeting attendance is curtailed.  We have a 3 meets and your out policy (one that few follow, I suspect that it is more for unexcused absences).  Does the assemblege mean to say that one meeting every now and then is regular?  While the circumstance is a great one, can the oath be upheld?

Active unit activity participation is required for promotion...if they can't participate do we just give it to them as a gimme?  Pass a Leadership test and Aerospace Test and earn the Mitchell?

Now, the point I'm making here is not in favor of throwing them out, but rather to point out that the Cadet Oath no longer applies to them as it is written and as you would have them say it.

Make the case for a revision to reflect this or move on.

[Nathan]

But I still maintain that their first responsibility it to the raising of their child.

Since your post generally bakes down to this, then I'll address this.

Absolutely, 100% correct that it should be their first priority to raise the child. IF they choose to keep the child, and not either give it up for adoption or abort it.

But does that mean to the exclusion of all else?

As both Ned and I pointed out, CAP should NEVER be the primary focus of ANYONE'S life, ever. Even at encampment, a family emergency will take precedence. Even on a mission. That's the way it goes.

The cadet oath, under your definition, would not apply to anyone with ANY other responsibilities that might trump those to CAP, and that is a little... out there. EVERYONE has responsibilities outside of CAP, especially cadets. Pregnancy and raising a child is just another responsibility that the cadet would have to weigh against all other options. It is NO different than having to make the decision as to whether or not they should go to CAP or study for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital.

Raising a child does not automatically forfeit their oath to be faithful to CAP. In fact, I would imagine that if the cadet is trying to raise a child and still trying to go to CAP, that would actually mean the cadet is more faithful to CAP than someone who fades out, and under your logic, they should therefore be held more accountable if they decide to leave due to the pregnancy.

Isn't that right?

[Major Carrales]

The cadet oath, under your definition, would not apply to anyone with ANY other responsibilities that might trump those to CAP, and that is a little... out there. EVERYONE has responsibilities outside of CAP, especially cadets. Pregnancy and raising a child is just another responsibility that the cadet would have to weigh against all other options. It is NO different than having to make the decision as to whether or not they should go to CAP or study for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital. .

Here is your main fallacy, having a child is not like "studying for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital."  I suspect you may be either too young or not have had the experience of having a child or else you would know this to be true.  This is speculation and opinion on my part, strong opinion if you are SPAATEN Cadet Col. Nathan Scalia who is 20 years old (according to your profile).

I suspect, if the above is the case, that we are seeing this from two persepectives.  I, from the side of a father of two girls who witnessed their birth and who's life was profoundly changed and you as a Cadet and young person who likely sees it as a discriminaton against Cadets.

I was in the same boat as a Young Adult.  I realized this when as a lad I saw the 1979 movie "Over the Edge" and thought it was the best movie I ever saw because the kids rebelled and took over the town; but then saw it after teaching two year of school some 15 year later or so and was totally disgusted.

I think there can be a middle ground between us.  By the way, I am not pointing that out to say "whoa, I'm an old man and know more than you," I just think it is an interesting juxaposition between two different points of view from people who care deeply about CAP.

[Ned]

I suspect, if the above is the case, that we are seeing this from two persepectives.  I, from the side of a father of two girls who witnessed their birth and who's life was profoundly changed and you as a Cadet and young person who likely sees it as a discriminaton against Cadets.

Let me help.

Just as you see Nathan as a youngster without sufficient experience, let me suggest that you may also be bumping up against your own limited experience.

I have not only witnessed the birth of my own two children, but have personally delivered a few belonging to other people.  I've raised my children who are now on their own and engaged in their own relationships.  My job responsiblities require that I intervene in the lives of many young people; some are young, some are struggling to succeed as parents, some are just plain struggling.

I've been through parenting classes and been certified as a foster parent by our local Department of Social Services. 

And of course, I have been rather actively involved in our cadet program for nearly 40 years.

Like you, I was profoundly changed by becoming a parent.

But from my perspective Nathan is absolutely right.  Terminating a cadet's membership for mere pregnancy or becoming a parent(or even just discouraging such a cadet) is depriving them of what may be the only positive aspect of their lives.  And human nature being what it is, as a practical matter will serve to toss out a lot more female than male cadets.  If that isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is. 

I suspect you will see that when you get a little more life experience under your belt.

By the way, I am not pointing that out to say "whoa, I'm an old man and know more than you,"

Yeah, me either.   

Joe, I sincerly appreciate your service in the cadet program.  If I seem harsh here, it is only because your position here seems inconsistent with your proven support and enthusiasm for cadets, even disadvantaged cadets.

(And all that stuff about the oath is just spoof-jamming.)

[Major Carrales]

I suspect, if the above is the case, that we are seeing this from two persepectives.  I, from the side of a father of two girls who witnessed their birth and who's life was profoundly changed and you as a Cadet and young person who likely sees it as a discriminaton against Cadets.

Let me help.

Just as you see Nathan as a youngster without sufficient experience, let me suggest that you may also be bumping up against your own limited experience.

I have not only witnessed the birth of my own two children, but have personally delivered a few belonging to other people.  I've raised my children who are now on their own and engaged in their own relationships.  My job responsiblities require that I intervene in the lives of many young people; some are young, some are struggling to succeed as parents, some are just plain struggling.

I've been through parenting classes and been certified as a foster parent by our local Department of Social Services. 

And of course, I have been rather actively involved in our cadet program for nearly 40 years.

Like you, I was profoundly changed by becoming a parent.

But from my perspective Nathan is absolutely right.  Terminating a cadet's membership for mere pregnancy or becoming a parent(or even just discouraging such a cadet) is depriving them of what may be the only positive aspect of their lives.  And human nature being what it is, as a practical matter will serve to toss out a lot more female than male cadets.  If that isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is. 

I suspect you will see that when you get a little more life experience under your belt.

By the way, I am not pointing that out to say "whoa, I'm an old man and know more than you,"

Yeah, me either.   

Joe, I sincerly appreciate your service in the cadet program.  If I seem harsh here, it is only because your position here seems inconsistent with your proven support and enthusiasm for cadets, even disadvantaged cadets.

(And all that stuff about the oath is just spoof-jamming.)

I've been a teacher for 11 years and seen and know only too well about what you speak.  I suspect I tried to argue the philosophical aspects of this as opposed to the more concrete matter, in the mix the two morphed. 

I try to seek understanding of all around me through debates on issues, at various levels.  It helps refine my core beliefs on things.  Sometimes, well, I guess I just dig too deep for that debate and end up in another matter altogether.  Real, "charge of the Light Brigade" stuff.


For the record, however, I will challenge you to cite any of my statements en re this matter that supported throwing them out.  My only point was that the reality of the situaton, based on what I have lived, proves that pregnancy generally spells the end of "cadetting" for the vast majority of those that develop the condition.  Furthermore, I presented the premise that elements of the cadet oath are not in line with the abilities of many of these persons to continue according to that oath.  I was very specific.  Again, I did not advocate throwing them "away;" but rather a reevaluation of what the oath means.  (and what it means to and for them.)

Again, these were conceptual things that became entangled with the more concrete elements of the thread to which your contentions were attached to replies to my threads.  Thus, you lumped me in with the others and hammered me into a corner, to which I replied in kind.

I believe in CAP, all its parts.  I believe in the cadet program, that it is a ladder up for many disadvantaged.

[CPT Anderson]

It is funny, we have to 2b a female cadet if she becomes pregnant but if your gay it's  OK!.   And yes I know some people think there is a difference but when I asked why we kick female cadets out for pregnancy, I WAS TOLD IT IS A MORALE ISSUE.

Pregnancy, Marriage, Joining the Military are all actions in which the cadet is participating in adult behavior - and IMO should not be a cadet.  Unfortunately this doesn't prohibit unmarried cadets with children from being cadets - but I think it should.

So, my thoughts about it are that it has nothing to do with morality but the cadets decision to participate in the adult world - so they should be treated accordingly and removed from cadet status.

But should we 2b her, or just change her over to Sr. Membership.....we have all those FO grades for a reason.  Where does it say you have to 2b a pregnant cadet??

[Eclipse]

But should we 2b her, or just change her over to Sr. Membership.....we have all those FO grades for a reason.  Where does it say you have to 2b a pregnant cadet??

Under 18?

Assuming you ignore the 2001 NEC meeting's direction that 35-3 be changed, then yes, 2b is the only option.

Senior members must be at least 18 years old, and the last thing we need is cadet leaders, under 18, and who are not capable of the good decisions necessary to not get pregnant.

[Nathan]

Just to clarify...

Here is your main fallacy, having a child is not like "studying for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital."  I suspect you may be either too young or not have had the experience of having a child or else you would know this to be true.  This is speculation and opinion on my part, strong opinion if you are SPAATEN Cadet Col. Nathan Scalia who is 20 years old (according to your profile).

Yep, that's me. I am C/Col Nathan Scalia, 20 years old, a Spaatzen. And no, I have no children under my belt. That may, in fact, make my view of the situation a little less... impassioned?

I completely and totally understand that the level of importance of any of the issues that I described in relation to raising a child is, for most people, not even a contest. However, my point wasn't to compare importance levels as they SHOULD BE to the parent. Rather, it was to make the point that the importance of the issue personally is completely irrelevant to the stance that CAP should take on the matter.

Child raising, working, schooling, and studying are all things that should, for the most part, come before CAP (just to name a few). However, at least one of these things happens in every single cadet's life at some point. And it is not up to CAP to make the ultimate decision as to the importance of the issue in relation with our organization. Otherwise, we would have to...

A) Evaluate every single job for it's importance. Are we going to kick cadets out for working at a hospital rather than working at McDonald's, since their work at a hospital is helping to save lives and therefore more important than most CAP activities?

B) Evaluate the degree the cadet is seeking. Should we force pre-med, law, and law enforcement out of CAP, but let the business, art, and theater majors stay in because their degree has a "less likely chance of being important in the real world?"

C) Evaluate the child's complete home situation. Should kids that live on a farm be forced to stay home to help, or children with multiple siblings and a single mother, since the mother may need help?

It is not CAP's job to determine for a cadet what he or she is capable of handling at home. At CAP, we have free reign of the duties she is assigned, of the staff positions she holds, of the grade she is promoted to... but to threaten her with termination from the program because she MIGHT have a child she MIGHT be raising alone and without support MAYBE without money and therefore MIGHT not be able to handle CAP? That doesn't make sense.

I really don't see why a commander wouldn't treat her like any other cadet with outside commitments. If the cadet can handle the commitments, like most cadets can (otherwise they wouldn't try anymore), then life goes on as normal. If the cadet is struggling with either CAP or something else outside of CAP that we are allowed by regulation to judge by, such as school grades, then the commander needs to talk with the cadet. If it does not seem like the issue can be resolved, the cadet is AT THAT TIME terminated from the program for the sake of the outside commitment.

But the important point here is that in every situation for 2b except for recognized criminal status, cadets are given a chance to prove to us that they cannot handle the responsibilities they have. It is not assumed. For the legal people out there, I feel completely satisfied using the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality when dealing with teenaged mothers.

[Nathan]

Senior members must be at least 18 years old, and the last thing we need is cadet leaders, under 18, and who are not capable of the good decisions necessary to not get pregnant.

I don't agree with the poster you are responding to about forcing a cadet to become a FO, but I once again question why you are okay assuming that all cadet mothers or pregnant cadets made a "decision" to get pregnant, that there was, in fact, anything truly or legally consensual about it. As Ned and I have said numerous times, there just isn't that much evidence to back up that kids are capable of truly consensual sex.

[Eclipse]

Senior members must be at least 18 years old, and the last thing we need is cadet leaders, under 18, and who are not capable of the good decisions necessary to not get pregnant.

I don't agree with the poster you are responding to about forcing a cadet to become a FO, but I once again question why you are okay assuming that all cadet mothers or pregnant cadets made a "decision" to get pregnant, that there was, in fact, anything truly or legally consensual about it. As Ned and I have said numerous times, there just isn't that much evidence to back up that kids are capable of truly consensual sex.

Lets leave that nonsense on the table for the purposes of this discussion - the number of 14 years olds with 3 kids, rape victims, or mentally impaired victims effected affected by this is effectively zero.  This is 2009, not 1950.

The mean on this rule (which, btw is no longer in effect but for some reason everyone seems to just want to ignore the facts and argue) is the sexually-active 15 or 16 year old that decided it was time to "become a woman".  No, they likely did not intend to get pregnant, but in this day and age, by 15-16 you are well aware of how the plumbing works, how and where to get birth control (many schools dispense), and the cause and effect of sex-to-pregnancy.

The trouble is the odds, not everyone gets pregnant, and teenagers are indestructible.  The math from there is easy.

We should be discouraging this behavior with whatever consequences we have at our disposal, including hard life lessons.  It worked for hundreds of years, and now in the last decade or so we're deciding to "change the rules".

[jimmydeanno]

I don't think that really matches up with your real-world example of the 10 year old sexual assault victim, but for the sake of argument let's look at your "proof."

Frankly, it is pretty weak.

I will agree with you that it's pretty weak "proof."  However, I can't find something on the web that points to all the girls I went to high-school who's quest it was to get pregnant or who actively tried to sleep with boys in the class (don't get me wrong, the guys are just as interested.) or the girls that I've been exposed to as an adult who express their desire to have a child - and while not as scripted or extreme as the Maury Show, the attitudes are similar - "I will do whatever I have to to get pregnant." 

Ned, I think that we can both agree - especially in your line of work - that youth do things they shouldn't, things that are morally reprehensible.  But, as I said before - the justice system of the United States seems to think that minors are capable of making reasoned, premeditated adult decisions in things like murder, robbery, sexual assualt, etc.  Why not pregnancy, sexual intercourse or other perverse sexual behavior?

I do not consider teen pregnancy to be a "youthful mistake" and I do not believe that every case of teen pregnancy is a sexual assault or rape and that they all need to be treated as though they are victims. 

Of course, the story does say that the males involved were 12 and 13 -- but what would a 13 year-old be doing in the fifth grade in the first place?  It doesn't make sense.

Off topic, I had a 20 year old in my junior class in high-school.  Kids stay back.

If you honestly think that a 10 year old girl who gets impregnated during a sexual assault is some sort of vixen with loose morals, we are pretty far apart on this issue.

I think that a 10 year old girl who comes to the decision to participate in sexual promiscuity (for whatever reason) is not the kind of youth that I want to have in my unit.  The girl I use as an example, honestly did not see the problem with her having 2 children at such a young age. 

Let me suggest you take a look at the literature surrounding what the experts call Child Sexual Assault Accommodation Syndrome. (CSAAS)  It helps to explain how children appear to go along with monstrous sex crimes committed upon them.  Children react differently to sexual situations than adults, and their helplessness and lack of resistance often make them appear less credible to adults who simply cannot understand why a 10 year old would engage in sexual behavior unless they really "wanted to."

Ned, I think we have a disconnect here.  I am not trying to say that henious things do not happen to kids.  Child molestation, sexual assualt, etc are real crimes and I do not in anyway view the victims of these acts as miscreants, sexual deviants, etc.  That is what this information is talking about - victims of sexual abuse and the way children deal with the effects of the abuse.

What we are talking about is consensual sex between two like aged individuals resulting in pregnancy.  "Prom night" pregnancies, "I'm so in love with him I just have to have his baby" pregnancies.  Are you saying those are sexual assaults and rapes as well?

Reading this: http://www.aafp.org/afp/980915ap/petter.html (Data is a little dated)

Sexual assault represented 5.5% of violent crime in 1994 with just over 97K being forceable rape.  That means that ~.02% of the ENTIRE population was affected.  Then it goes on to say that between 1 and 5 percent of those result in pregnancy.  So we'll take the median at 2%.  So 1940 of those resulted in pregnancy.  It then says that half of the victims are adolescents (~.01% of the population).  So ~820 occurances of pregnancy resulting from sexual assault in 1994.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find population data for the same year so we'll go with 2000.  Under 18 female population was ~36,000,000 according to the US Census.  So that gives us a .00022% proliferation rate for pregnancy in those under 18 from sexual assault.

CAP has around 25K cadets - apply that same rate to our cadets and you get 1.12 in the entire organization.  Of course other factors will reduce that number further including the environments these girls are in, etc.

Teen pregnancy as a whole though is different.  The US teen birth rate (15-19) in 2001 was 43 per thousand, or 4.3%.  I don't know what the breakdown is male female in CAP, but it'll give you a greatly higher chance of a pregnant cadet than the sexual assault victim.

My point here is that we create policy over statistical anomalies.  Because there might someday be a girl who was a victim of sexual assault who happened to become one of the .00002 % of the 12-21 year olds that CAP recruits.

Now obviously someone who is better with statistics than I will probably see many issues and considerations that I didn't take into account, but I think you get the point.

Teen pregnancy (under 18) has not been socially acceptable since 1800.  It is not normal or routine - it is a bad decision any way you slice it.  So if someone is choosing to participate in a pattern of behavior that is criminal in most states that results in pregnancy (proof of the action) I would argue that that person doesn't not fit the "be of good moral character" requirement to be a cadet.

[Nathan]

Lets leave that nonsense on the table for the purposes of this discussion - the number of 14 years olds with 3 kids, rape victims, or mentally impaired victims effected by this is effectively zero.  This is 2009, not 1950.

The mean on this rule (which, btw is no longer in effect but for some reason everyone seems to just want to ignore the facts and argue) is the sexually-active 15 or 16 year old that decided it was time to "become a woman".  No, they likely did not intend to get pregnant, but in this day and age, by 15-16 you are well aware of how the plumbing works, how and where to get birth control (many schools dispense), and the cause and effect of sex-to-pregnancy.

The trouble is the odds, not everyone gets pregnant, and teenagers are indestructible.  The math from there is easy.

We should be discouraging this behavior with whatever consequences we have at our disposal, including hard life lessons.  It worked for hundreds of years, and now in the last decade or so we're deciding to "change the rules".

I do not consider teen pregnancy to be a "youthful mistake" and I do not believe that every case of teen pregnancy is a sexual assault or rape and that they all need to be treated as though they are victims.

Both of these arguments are similar, and they both have a similar answer.

As it is true that SOME teenagers (but nearly zero children) will have consensual sex, get pregnant, and have children due to "making bad choices", to attack all cadet mothers under that blanket assumption is irresponsible.

We aren't going to assume that everyone who has burn injuries is a pyromaniac and did it to themselves. We aren't going to assume that any cadet involved in a car wreck must be at fault. We aren't even going to assume that any cadet that was arrested was at fault for the crime he or she is suspected of. That is up to the courts to decide, not us.

In the end, the cadet must be PROVEN guilty of the crime you are trying to accuse her of. This follows the same logic in CAP regulations, such as a cadet having to PROVE that their grades are plummeting, not us simply assuming it because they have a challenging courseload.

We CANNOT assume anything from pregnancy alone. It is simply the result of an act, and does not give us ANY information about the act itself.

So I ask both of you again, are you really willing to toss out possible crime victims who want to be cadets who may REALLY benefit from our program simply because they MIGHT have made a bad decision (as if the rest of us haven't)? Or are you ready to suggest that all female cadets must fill out a full questionnaire about their sexual activity, rape victim status, and cause of any current/past pregnancies? Otherwise, there is NO WAY to logically deduce that the cadet has actually done anything even theoretically worth getting booted for, and you're simply assuming their guilt.

[Eclipse]

So I ask both of you again, are you really willing to toss out possible crime victims who want to be cadets who may REALLY benefit from our program simply because they MIGHT have made a bad decision (as if the rest of us haven't)? Or are you ready to suggest that all female cadets must fill out a full questionnaire about their sexual activity, rape victim status, and cause of any current/past pregnancies? Otherwise, there is NO WAY to logically deduce that the cadet has actually done anything even theoretically worth getting booted for, and you're simply assuming their guilt.

Yes.  Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 
(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant. Whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

[lordmonar]

Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 

(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant, whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Eclipse....you are wrong.....pregnancy is not a basis to 2b anyone....as per the NB.

[Eclipse]

Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 

(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant, whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Eclipse....you are wrong.....pregnancy is not a basis to 2b anyone....as per the NB.

Reread, Please.  That's what I've been saying all along, but people have been making the argument, I think just to argue, that because the reg wasn't updated timely, the original 1981 version of 35-3 is still in force, including the pregnancy clause for termination, which, in fact, it is not.

Nathan and others want to pretend the rule is still in effect, and then argue against it (and I'm not helping by engaging the same conversation).

In that context, I am indicating that a unit CC has no latitude in why a cadet is pregnant, if they are, they are out.
(up until the rule changed in 2001).

[cnitas]

Why are the rules not in effect?  Since when are NB votes regulatory?  Doesn't it need to come out as a reg change, supplement, or ICL to be regulatory? 

Particularly when the NB votes and then years pass with no official written guidance.  As a squadron commander I am going to go to the latest reg posted online.  I am not going to read through 10 years worth of NB votes.

Seems like a Ranger Tab/ blue beret type issue to me.

[Nathan]

Yes.  Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 
(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

I'm not ignoring anything. The reg covering pregnant cadets, as far as I can see in my somewhat updated book, is still there and, due to the couple of stories shared both here and that I've heard elsewhere, still somewhat in effect and enforceable. Besides, I was under the impression that we were debating more about whether we should be booting out cadet mothers, not whether or not the nonexistent reg covering THAT situation is correct or not.

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant. Whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

Right... it is the job of the commander to simply blindly follow a blanket rule without considering the context.

Oh, wait. I forgot that the commanders were actually supposed to command. Silly me.

We certainly wouldn't need commanders if a book could run a CAP unit...  

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Subjective... morality based decisions... like the fact that the decision to get pregnant as a teenager is wrong? That seems pretty subjective to me, since I happen to know quite a few teenagers in my area alone who are doing fine as parents.

I am playing in your battlefield by simply assuming that teenaged pregnancy is "wrong" when the teenager actively makes a conscious, informed, consensual decision to have sex and get pregnant. Therefore, I'm arguing that the majority of pregnancy cases simply don't happen like that. But there are far more issues to consider on a moral battlefield.

Do we take issue with the fact that the cadet is pregnant? If so, what if she had sex with protection? Is that morally okay? No? Okay, well, now teenagers having sex is immoral. Okay, so what are you going to do about it? Punish the gender that is biologically disadvantaged when attempting to hide sex? How is that NOT sexist? You don't want to discriminate? Okay, then be prepared to write up a survey on the New Cadet Application to include sexual practices so that males can be equally discriminated against for their sexual activity.

You can simply assume that any pregnant cadet is "wrong" and therefore something we need to be fighting in CAP, but you're going to have to do a lot better than to declare your opinion of right and wrong in order for it to be valid enough to enforce as regulation. That is the job of a regulation.

And in that vein, we are certainly not required to obey regulations or orders that may be unethical. I would imagine that a sexist regulation certainly falls under that category, wouldn't you agree?

[swamprat86]

I think that it is time to put this to rest.  Everyone has their opinion on this, the regs need to be updated with the changes or an ICL printed, or commanders will still submit 2bs under this classification and National should reject it accordingly.  If they don't, the cadet involved has the appeal process which will quickly dismiss the 2b.

Let's lock this and move forward.

[Nathan]

I think that it is time to put this to rest.  Everyone has their opinion on this, the regs need to be updated with the changes or an ICL printed, or commanders will still submit 2bs under this classification and National should reject it accordingly.  If they don't, the cadet involved has the appeal process which will quickly dismiss the 2b.

Let's lock this and move forward.

That's not what we're talking about. As far as I can tell (unless it's dissolved beyond recognition), this is a debate about whether cadet mothers should be removed from cadet status, which is NOT covered by regulation.

I have never really understood the point of locking a thread that other people don't think is going anywhere... just don't read it...?

[Eclipse]

Why not?  Since when are NB votes regulatory?  Doesn't it need to come out as a reg change, supplement, or ICL to be regulatory? 

Since the last revision of the constitution which grants them specific, immediate powers.

By the letter of the regs you are correct, certain actions, ICLs, and updates to regulations have expiration dates, and are supposed to be updated timely.  Further, ICL's and other memorandums issued by a former commander and not made regulatory generally expire when that CC leaves.

However in the near 10 years I have been in CAP, these requirements have been largely ignored, and rarely challenged, and when challenged a new ICL, etc., is issued and the challenge becomes moot.

To try and deny a decade of precedents so we can pick and choose which regs to follow is folly.  Its clear what the intention of the Board was, and a 2b for pregnancy would never be sustained by the MARB, assuming it wasn't caught by lower HQ first.

Unchallenged terminations of uninformed cadets do not stand as evidence to the contrary.

[cnitas]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

[Eclipse]

And in that vein, we are certainly not required to obey regulations or orders that may be unethical. I would imagine that a sexist regulation certainly falls under that category, wouldn't you agree?

No.

The rules is the rules.  Period.

(again, this rule was rescinded, please stop ignoring that fact)

NHQ says CC's can terminate cadets for improper grooming, non-performance, lack of attendance, and other subjective issues.

NHQ says CC's will terminate cadets for pregnancy, military enlistment, marriage, felony conviction, and a few other objective criteria.  No filter, no morality, no option.  In essence they quit CAP when they knowingly violated one of these bright-line rules.

[Eclipse]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

"Revision" was probably the wrong term - the NB/NEC/BOG powers haven't changed substantially in since at least the late 90's, though the constitution has been amended on an ongoing basis since at least 2000.

Management by ICL, supplement, addendum, and memorandum and been status quo during my tenure, right or wrong the precedent is already in place.

As an easily-reached, visible example, the CSU exists only long-expired ICLs, but there's plenty of other areas we can find of much more importance than a uniform where rules with real consequence were put in place and are enforced without the regs being properly updated.

[cnitas]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

"Revision" was probably the wrong term - the NB/NEC/BOG powers haven't changed substantially in since at least the late 90's, though the constitution has been amended on an ongoing basis since at least 2000.

Management by ICL, supplement, addendum, and memorandum and been status quo during my tenure, right or wrong the precedent is already in place.

As an easily-reached, visible example, the CSU exists only long-expired ICLs, but there's plenty of other areas we can find of much more importance than a uniform where rules with real consequence were put in place and are enforced without the regs being properly updated.

OK, great.  Where is the ICL, supplement, addendum, or memorandum?  Or does Knowledge base answer make it on that list as well?

[Eclipse]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

"Revision" was probably the wrong term - the NB/NEC/BOG powers haven't changed substantially in since at least the late 90's, though the constitution has been amended on an ongoing basis since at least 2000.

Management by ICL, supplement, addendum, and memorandum and been status quo during my tenure, right or wrong the precedent is already in place.

As an easily-reached, visible example, the CSU exists only long-expired ICLs, but there's plenty of other areas we can find of much more importance than a uniform where rules with real consequence were put in place and are enforced without the regs being properly updated.

OK, great.  Where is the ICL, supplement, addendum, or memorandum?  Or does Knowledge base answer make it on that list as well?

In this case its in the minutes of the 2001 NB meeting, which are public record once the minutes are approved.  The KB simply provides the detail of where to find the answer.

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, sub-paragraph (2) Marriage—add the language "after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, sub-paragraph (9) Pregnancy— delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3

I'd say a factor in this getting lost in the shuffle were the events of 911 which took CAP's focus for several months right after that meeting, but the fact remains that a body with the authority made the above rules change, and the fact that notification was not made properly is a procedural issue, not a regulatory one.

[lordmonar]

Since when are NB votes regulatory?

Since before the start of time!

Who do you thing "writes" the regs?

Granted there is a lot of negligence going on on this issue and many others.  A lot of that is because we don't have a full time staff to do the leg work.

In the mean time go to KB.....

[ThorntonOL]

OK, has anyone even checked the Knowledgebase yet?
This is what the Knowledgebase gave as an answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Pregnant cadets

  Question
  What if a cadet becomes pregnant? Where can I find the regulation on that since I heard that it changed?

  Answer
  Pregnancy is no longer a cause for automatic termination of membership. An early change (Change 2 dated 1 Jul 1985) to CAPR 35-3 Membership Termination added pregnancy as {paragraph 3a(9)} one of the reasons for automatic loss of membership by cadets, but that is no longer the case.

The policy was changed by the National Board in August 2001 when the Board approved a recommendation to remove pregnancy as a cause for automatic termination (see below).

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, sub-paragraph (2) Marriage—add the language "after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, sub-paragraph (9) Pregnancy— delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3.

I would suggest asking National for a complete clarification if this doesn't suffice.
Seriously this has gotten out of hand.

[jimmydeanno]

There isn't anything that has gotten out of hand...I think that this has been a very good discussion so far.  Obviously if the reg says keep them, we're going to - but the discussion is more along the lines of "should we" and "is it actually discrimination," etc.

I think that there has been numerous good points brought out in this thread and it has proved to be informative for me.  Just the fact that we noted that a change to membership criteria has been changed and hasn't been updated in a reg 8 years later was reason enough to bring this up.

As for the knowledgebase, well - that's another thread.

[Nathan]

There isn't anything that has gotten out of hand...I think that this has been a very good discussion so far.  Obviously if the reg says keep them, we're going to - but the discussion is more along the lines of "should we" and "is it actually discrimination," etc.

I think that there has been numerous good points brought out in this thread and it has proved to be informative for me.  Just the fact that we noted that a change to membership criteria has been changed and hasn't been updated in a reg 8 years later was reason enough to bring this up.

As for the knowledgebase, well - that's another thread.

Indeed.

There doesn't have to be a definite possibility for every single thread, especially on CAPTalk... this is a discussion board, for the purpose of discussion. It is discussion which can both motivate the membership one way or the other in order to bring about a change, and I certainly don't think that it's necessary for the possibility of change to already be on the table before discussion can be considered valid...

[cnitas]

I agree with Jimmydeanno.  I am not overly emotional about this and I have never run across the situation before.

I am only pointing out that there is a gaping hole in our published regulations if they do accurately describe our membership criteria.

I can guarantee you that a cadet facing a 2B in this case will not know to go searching votes for the latest NB decision.  You would be really lucky if they find the regulation.

Maybe a 25% change they search the KB.
What are the chances the average unit commander will go looking beyond the regulation?

[Eclipse]

Cadets have parents, they are very useful in these situations.

Further, any unit CC worth his salt, when confronted with terminating anyone, should be consulting higher HQ, if for no other reason than the next echelon is the appeal authority and they should be aware.

Hopefully by the time you get to parents, a Group or Wing CC, etc., someone knows the regs or can be bothered to do 30 seconds of research.

In this specific case, all it would take is a cadet checking the KB, or calling NHQ and asking the question, which would bring out the about NB decision, and likely end the conversation.

At some point, this isn't the BSA or an after-school club.  Our cadets are afforded some pretty grown-up opportunities, and part of the price for that is accepting responsibility for knowing the regs and being current on NEC/NB actions. Somehow they get the word on berets and patches, but are allowed to ignore the important stuff like NIMS and pregnancy.

Same goes for commanders, this ongoing nonsense about not being able to keep up is just that, nonsense.  No one can know everything, but the collective knowledge is available to anyone with the initiative to type in a search box.

[Nathan]

Further, any unit CC worth his salt, when confronted with terminating anyone, should be consulting higher HQ, if for no other reason than the next echelon is the appeal authority and they should be aware.

True, however, it's not the commanders who are going to be the ones in trouble if they choose not to do the work expected of them in this particular situation. It could be that the commander simply shakes his head when the potential cadet comes in without ever really notifying anyone above him or her. The end.

That, plus the commander's personal bias against a teenaged mother/pregnant teenager may in itself be enough for this cadet to be unfairly barred entry into the program. After all, the commander may well have some idea that there MIGHT be something beyond the regulation out there, but if he or she doesn't want the cadet in the program at the first place, there isn't exactly and motivation to go find it...

Granted, I'm not trying to turn this into a fight between pregnant teens and squadron commanders. However, the mistake/negligence of a squadron commander is punitive toward the potential cadet, and the potential can be reduced considerably by making things more clear.

[Cecil DP]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  pregnant cadets

  Question
  What if a cadet becomes pregnant? Where can I find the regulation on that since I heard that it changed?

  Answer
  Pregnancy is no longer a cause for automatic termination of membership. An early change (Change 2 dated 1 Jul 1985) to CAPR 35-3 Membership Termination added pregnancy as {paragraph 3a(9)} one of the reasons for automatic loss of membership by cadets, but that is no longer the case.

The policy was changed by the National Board in August 2001 when the Board approved a recommendation to remove pregnancy as a cause for automatic termination (see below).

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, subparagraph (2) Marriage—add the language after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, subparagraph (9) Pregnancy delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3.

I would suggest asking National for a complete clarification if this doesn't suffice.
Seriously this has gotten out of hand.

The problem is that until the Regulation is published it's not in effect. Even the ICL's are temporary fixes which have limited life. Now that the Regs are available electronically and therefore do not have to be printed out, CAP is still not updating. I think that if HQ disagrees with a change by the Board or NEC it just drags it;s feet until it's forgotten.

[Eclipse]

The problem is that until the Regulation is published it's not in effect. Even the ICL's are temporary fixes which have limited life. Now that the Regs are available electronically and therefore do not have to be printed out, CAP is still not updating. I think that if HQ disagrees with a change by the Board or NEC it just drags it;s feet until it's forgotten.

Sorry, you guys can continue to make that assertion all you want, it is simply not true.  Read the constitution and bylaws.

The BOG, NB, and NEC have their respective powers, period.  There is no allowance for delay in implementation or effective date (unless the decision so stipulates).