http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
Im on board. It goes right along with what the Marines tried to do when I was in. No marriage, no dependents on your first enlistment. Of course the mothers of America screamed.
As far as this article, when you join the military, you agree to a certain standard of living. Pregnancy very rarely, that I know of, makes a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine more productive. Now keep in mind, this is about getting pregnant while in a combat zone. Not back at home.
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 20, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
Im on board. It goes right along with what the Marines tried to do when I was in. No marriage, no dependents on your first enlistment. Of course the mothers of America screamed.
As far as this article, when you join the military, you agree to a certain standard of living. Pregnancy very rarely, that I know of, makes a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine more productive. Now keep in mind, this is about getting pregnant while in a combat zone. Not back at home.
Well considering that you had to violate CENTCOM General Order No.1 to get pregnant in the first place. Yeah, you could be court martialed for violating orders.
(CENTCOM General Order No. 1 states that there will be no alcohol, no porn and no sex in the AOR, period. This is to keep our Islamic hosts happy.)
Artificial insemination? Immaculate reception?
The rules is the rules. They come with benefits and consequences, break them and you're out.
However this will be made out by special interest groups to be an attack on women and motherhood. (She should be ordered to
produce the name of the father and they should kick him, too.)
To bring this back to CAP, pregnancy is a terminable offense (CAPF 2B) for a CAP cadet. Or, at least, it used to be. I may have missed an ICL somewhere.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 20, 2009, 06:08:49 PM
To bring this back to CAP, pregnancy is a terminable offense (CAPF 2B) for a CAP cadet. Or, at least, it used to be. I may have missed an ICL somewhere.
Pregnancy has not be an justification for termination in CAP since 2001.
Eclipse, sorry to correct you and retract my wisea$$ ICL jab, but upon further review... CAPR 35-3, section A:
Quote3. 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 reach 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
b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings without an acceptable excuse.
d. Misconduct.
e. In addition to the above, it is the prerogative of the unit commander to terminate membership for a cadet who moves to another area, but does not request transfer to a unit in the new locality within a reasonable period of time. Since many cadets who move quite frequently (especially if their parents are members of the Armed Forces) prefer to remain assigned to their parent units, it is emphasized that termination under this condition is not mandatory, but is at the discretion of the unit commander. .If the unit commander determines that the cadet cannot successfully participate in the cadet program under these circumstances, the commander will give the departing cadet at least three months in the new locality to affiliate with another unit prior to initiating termination action.
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 20, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm
Im on board. It goes right along with what the Marines tried to do when I was in. No marriage, no dependents on your first enlistment. Of course the mothers of America screamed.
As far as this article, when you join the military, you agree to a certain standard of living. Pregnancy very rarely, that I know of, makes a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine more productive. Now keep in mind, this is about getting pregnant while in a combat zone. Not back at home.
I can understand single soldiers, but married ones in the same AOR? That I have a bit of an issue with. If you don't want married couples to have sex, don't put them in the same AOR. Problem solved.
Put them in the same AOR, but courtmartial upon a pregnancy? Complete BS.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 20, 2009, 06:07:22 PM
Immaculate reception?
That's too funny.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 20, 2009, 06:07:22 PMHowever this will be made out by special interest groups to be an attack on women and motherhood.
Of course it will. Many folks completely twist an issue to something unrelated.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 20, 2009, 06:07:22 PM(She should be ordered to produce the name of the father and they should kick him, too.)
Agreed. The only downside is that some of them that do it are doing it for that very reason. They want out.
CAPR 35-3:
Beat me to it.
Quote from: PHall on December 20, 2009, 05:53:59 PM
(CENTCOM General Order No. 1 states that there will be no alcohol, no porn and no sex in the AOR, period. This is to keep our Islamic hosts happy.)
Yeah, that made for a really boring 6 months... three things that go great with pizza, and all we had left was pizza.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 20, 2009, 06:33:44 PM
Eclipse, sorry to correct you and retract my wisea$$ ICL jab, but upon further review... CAPR 35-3, section A:
Quote3. 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 reach 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
b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings without an acceptable excuse.
d. Misconduct.
e. In addition to the above, it is the prerogative of the unit commander to terminate membership for a cadet who moves to another area, but does not request transfer to a unit in the new locality within a reasonable period of time. Since many cadets who move quite frequently (especially if their parents are members of the Armed Forces) prefer to remain assigned to their parent units, it is emphasized that termination under this condition is not mandatory, but is at the discretion of the unit commander. .If the unit commander determines that the cadet cannot successfully participate in the cadet program under these circumstances, the commander will give the departing cadet at least three months in the new locality to affiliate with another unit prior to initiating termination action.
I see your call and raise you the NB minutes from August, 2001.
"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. "
Quote from: Eclipse on December 20, 2009, 06:56:56 PM
I see your call and raise you the NB minutes from August, 2001.
"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. "
So it's been 8 years and they still haven't released a new reg. That's amazing.
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 20, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm)
Im on board. It goes right along with what the Marines tried to do when I was in. No marriage, no dependents on your first enlistment. Of course the mothers of America screamed.
As far as this article, when you join the military, you agree to a certain standard of living. Pregnancy very rarely, that I know of, makes a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine more productive. Now keep in mind, this is about getting pregnant while in a combat zone. Not back at home.
How can you prosecute a bodily function???
Since Regulations are no longer printed, wouldn't it be nice if the paid National Staff IT people updated the regulation online within a reawsonable amount of time? What are they paid for?
Quote from: Cecil DP on December 20, 2009, 09:17:04 PM
How can you prosecute a bodily function???
Easily. Self control is something we want our military to use. Law of war, Geneva Convention etc. (If you really need relief...retire to the latrine)
Quote from: Cecil DP on December 20, 2009, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 20, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm)
Im on board. It goes right along with what the Marines tried to do when I was in. No marriage, no dependents on your first enlistment. Of course the mothers of America screamed.
As far as this article, when you join the military, you agree to a certain standard of living. Pregnancy very rarely, that I know of, makes a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine more productive. Now keep in mind, this is about getting pregnant while in a combat zone. Not back at home.
How can you prosecute a bodily function???
If they were prosecuting women for having menstrual cycles, then they'd be prosecuting a bodily function. What they're prosecuting are actions. People have complete control over whether or not they have sexual relations. We are not animals who can't control our urges. Frankly, they're there to kill the enemy, not to get some. When a woman gets pregnant on the battlefield, they have to be evacuated and replaced. This causes unit disruptions, hurting the mission. Prosecute BOTH the mother and the father.
Quote from: BillB on December 20, 2009, 09:36:32 PM
Since Regulations are no longer printed, wouldn't it be nice if the paid National Staff IT people updated the regulation online within a reawsonable amount of time? What are they paid for?
Actually, I place the blame on the OPR (in this case, personnel). They should be the ones making the publication change, PDF'ing it, and sending it to the web people. They had no problem getting change 3 to 39-2 (dues changes) posted in October... but they can't take one line out of 35-3.
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that "celibacy was the strangest of all perversions".
Quote from: McLarty on December 20, 2009, 06:59:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 20, 2009, 06:56:56 PM
I see your call and raise you the NB minutes from August, 2001.
"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. "
So it's been 8 years and they still haven't released a new reg. That's amazing.
No reg, no ICL. If we govern CAP by the National Board minutes, what good are regulations? Especially when political entities tend to double back on themselves every once in a while.
Quote from: Cecil DP on December 21, 2009, 04:10:56 AM
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that "celibacy was the strangest of all perversions".
He certainly knew about perversions. I think I'll get my life's philosophy somewhere else.
My fiancee pointed me to this story originally. She was *angry*. I told her I agreed with the policy in principle, for which I got a punch to the shoulder...
Anyway, as long as it's an "in theater" pregnancy issue (not rape either, voluntary act of...ahem), then this just falls back in line with following the orders already established for "in country" behavior.
National Board minutes shouldn't be considered binding until published as a regulation. Is there a reference somewhere that states NB minutes trumps standing regulations even when unpublished?
Most members won't bother to search through NB minutes when searching for regulatory guidance. They go to the On-Line regulations on the NHQ web site for a current reference. I don't believe the O-2 or O-9 has a caveat about searching NB minutes before consulting a regulation or form.
So, what's a well intended member supposed to do? No, I don't know of any pregnant cadets, thank goodness!
Quote from: sparks on December 21, 2009, 05:38:33 PM
National Board minutes shouldn't be considered binding until published as a regulation. Is there a reference somewhere that states NB minutes trumps standing regulations even when unpublished?
Yes, the CAP constitution and bylaws.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a third list in addition to the O-2 and O-9 that contained NB minutes effecting regulations that had not been incorporated into a regulation. Of course the list would be amended to drop NB minutes as regulations were changed. This would be an increased work load but worth it to keep the membership on track.
I know we have a code that says what happens overseas stays overseas but you guys would be surprised at what happens over there.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 07:32:23 PM
I know we have a code that says what happens overseas stays overseas but you guys would be surprised at what happens over there.
Would it be that surprising? When you throw a whole bunch of college-aged kids together...
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on December 21, 2009, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 07:32:23 PM
I know we have a code that says what happens overseas stays overseas but you guys would be surprised at what happens over there.
Would it be that surprising? When you throw a whole bunch of college-aged kids together...
Not to me, but you have a lot of people that have this "impression" of our service members like they canjust do no wrong. But its more than just college aged folks. I know Maj's and Lt Col's doing the same stuff.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 10:15:44 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on December 21, 2009, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 07:32:23 PM
I know we have a code that says what happens overseas stays overseas but you guys would be surprised at what happens over there.
Would it be that surprising? When you throw a whole bunch of college-aged kids together...
Not to me, but you have a lot of people that have this "impression" of our service members like they canjust do no wrong. But its more than just college aged folks. I know Maj's and Lt Col's doing the same stuff.
And again, it comes down to people...being people.
I've heard plenty of stories from recruiters I knew better than most, from friends, other enlisted folks, etc.
Rank and age are no defense against zipper problems.
Quote from: Short Field on December 21, 2009, 10:34:07 PM
Rank and age are no defense against zipper problems.
lol. so true. Did you guys hear about the female three star gat accused a male twostar of sexual harrassment? My thinking is why didnt she just lock his heels and send him on his way? ;D
Follow-up: http://www.wmur.com/health/22036978/detail.html
General Coloco outlines a policy that says that pregancy is a court marshal offense, then says, "I have never considered court-martial for this, I do not ever see myself putting a soldier in jail for this," said Cucolo, who oversees U.S. forces in northern Iraq. But since pregnant women automatically go home, their units are left short-staffed..."
Why create a policy only to say that you never even considered enforcing it? Doesn't make sense to me...
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 22, 2009, 09:11:09 PM
Why create a policy only to say that you never even considered enforcing it? Doesn't make sense to me...
Because there are a lot of options available to enforce the policy short of a court-martial.
Like an Article 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_15), effectively ending the career of the recipient.
Plus a lot of other adminstrative stuff that is available to enforce standards.