Comments on: Pregnant Troops Leave The War

By: Teri

Teri — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

What would be both interesting and impossible to find out would be how many of these pregnancies are deliberate attempts to get out of the soldier's posting?

A 10% pregnancy rate is higher than the general pregnancy rate for unprotected intercourse, about one per year. That's the rate against which contraceptives measure themselves in their advertising.

I find it hard to believe that contraceptives are not widely available to women in the military, so I have to assume that many of them are getting pregnant because they want to.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I'm sure there are women who deliberately get pregnant to get out of the service. Still, a lot of women in the private sector get pregnant despite the widespread availability of contraceptives, just because they're not cautious.

By: jen

jen — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Makes for a strong argument against women in combat.

By: Ralf Goergens

Ralf Goergens — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

It's interesting that they use the gender-neutral term "troops" for pregnant women.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Not tracking the statistics; what a bunch of B.S. - I bet the army knows the color of my underwear. I've been in the army long enough to know that the army definately tracks these numbers and it is a problem. It is true that some female soldiers will purposely get pregnant to avoid a deployment or to go home during a deployment; thankfully these "soldiers" are the exception.

By: Kent A

Kent A — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

What a joyous change in the "New Army." I guess the slogan of "An Army of One" might need to be changed to "An Army of One with you in your bunk." Dealing with this garbage must just inferioriate a commander's day. At least infantry grunts have so far been spared this imposition of gender neutrality.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Based on the few numbers that they present in the article, it doesn't sound like there are sufficient numbers to raise any readiness concerns. I speculate that one of the primary motivations behind the "we don't keep statistics" stance is that statistics can be warped to paint a picture that is in no way representative of reality. Some key points:

1) No combat troops are women. Period.
2) The percentage of women in non-combat roles make them a distinct minority in-theater.
3) Despite any higher-than-average pregnancy rate, when you're only talking about non-combat troops, and 10% of women in-theater translates to, say, 3% or less of all troops in theater, this seems to be rapidly transforming into a tempest in a teapot.

I've never been big on having women in the military, but this sure ain't one of the major reasons.

---