• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

SE102 said:
Killing is against a some people's religious belief, those folks don't join the army. What if it were my religion to roll on shrooms every sunday? I wouldn't join the army because that would be hard to do. Is the army going to approve my shroom intake? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Personel who don't want to kill the enemy, because of their religious convictions are still allowed to serve as contientious objectors, too. So that argument is a big fail.

Your argument that mandating those on subs to take birth control is against religious freedom is a thin argument, your probably making it for the lack of one. If they have a religious problem with it then they can gtfo and be religiously ignorant elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If a soldier can't be ordered to kill the enemy on the battlefield, because of religious beliefs, then a soldier can't be ordered to take birth control, because of religious beliefs.



Not really, its a hormone birth control. Not much of a drug really, i dont see how thats going to lead to forcing soldiers to take controlled substances which is outrageous even to the wildest imagination.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any birth control drug that isn't controlled through prescription.

Seriously what fantasy application is there for mind altering drugs in the military?
Click to expand...

You must be totally unaware of LSD experimentation on soldiers during the 50's and 60's.

I dont know, I wasn't allowed to undergo sexual activity in basic I don't see why I would be allowed to have sex while on a sub. I don't know that much about the military, you're obviously the military smart pants here, not me.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should tone down the, "you don't know what the **** you're talking about", routine, then.
 
apdst said:
it would be religious discrimination, because you're telling a sailor that she can't serve, because of her religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
No, we are saying that she can serve if she chooses, but she has to follow the rules. And if her religion requires her to see the sun every day, then she shouldn't get on a sub. No religious discrimination at all. She has the choice to serve, no one is telling her she can't serve at all. The decision is ALL HERS.

All, but one...:rofl
Click to expand...
Explain how all but one is a choice.
 
apdst said:
LOL...if you're meeting PFT standards, there should be no need for physical re-training.
Click to expand...

Hard to tell, since PFT was never a requirement at any of the hospitals I was stationed at. I dare say you would've seen a fairly high failure rate if it was suddenly required.
 
apdst said:
Maybe not your fault, but I bet you weren't begging to get transferred to a line unit. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Hey, why don't we denigrate people's service....
 
rivrrat said:
No, we are saying that she can serve if she chooses, but she has to follow the rules. And if her religion requires her to see the sun every day, then she shouldn't get on a sub. No religious discrimination at all. She has the choice to serve, no one is telling her she can't serve at all. The decision is ALL HERS.
Click to expand...

And, one of those rules cannot be that she must take birth control. How the hell would you enforce that, anyway?

Ship's captain: "Take your birth control, sailor?"

Female sailor: "Oh, yes sir!"


Explain how all but one is a choice.
Click to expand...

I already have, but I don't mind doing it again: You can't force a female service member to take birth control as a condition of service.
 
Redress said:
Hey, why don't we denigrate people's service....
Click to expand...

You've done, so I thought you would be cool with it. Remember when you and Carrier Navy's experience outweighed mine, IOW, I must not know ****? recall when you said that? Which infantry unit did you serve in, BTW? I mean, since you know so much more than I.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Thanks, but it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

It does me. Service to country is service to country. This whole "my service was better than yours" is bull**** and does piss me off.
 
apdst said:
And, one of those rules cannot be that she must take birth control.
Click to expand...
Yes, it CAN be. Just like one of the conditions is that she can't see the sun and she has to share sleeping quarters.

How the hell would you enforce that, anyway?

Ship's captain: "Take your birth control, sailor?"

Female sailor: "Oh, yes sir!"
Click to expand...
IUD


I already have, but I don't mind doing it again: You can't force a female service member to take birth control as a condition of service.
Click to expand...
That's proving nothing. Additionally, you're not forcing her to do anything. It's her choice. It's a condition of working in a certain environment. She chooses to accept it or not, her choice. All hers.
 
apdst said:
You've done, so I thought you would be cool with it. Remember when you and Carrier Navy's experience outweighed mine, IOW, I must not know ****? recall when you said that? Which infantry unit did you serve in, BTW? I mean, since you know so much more than I.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are misrepresenting what was said. You did not think navy experience was as relevant, I pointed out it was.
 
Redress said:
It does me. Service to country is service to country. This whole "my service was better than yours" is bull**** and does piss me off.
Click to expand...

It didn't stop you.
 
rivrrat said:
Yes, it CAN be. Just like one of the conditions is that she can't see the sun and she has to share sleeping quarters.


IUD



That's proving nothing. Additionally, you're not forcing her to do anything. It's her choice. It's a condition of working in a certain environment. She chooses to accept it or not, her choice. All hers.
Click to expand...

You can't force a service member to take a drug, as a condition of service. I challenge you to show me in any DoD, NAVMAC, Air Force, or Army regulation where any branch of service, or arms reserves that right. Let me help you out, you can't, because it doesn't exist and never will.
 
apdst said:
You can't force a service member to take a drug, as a condition of service. I challenge you to show me in any DoD, NAVMAC, Air Force, or Army regulation where any branch of service, or arms reserves that right. Let me help you out, you can't, because it doesn't exist and never will.
Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it never will, mr. psychic.

And not all IUDs have hormone releases. Though, IMO, any woman in her right mind would choose the hormone one over the non-hormone one.

But let me get this straight: Under no circumstances could the navy require someone to take medication in order to serve on a sub? Even if that medication treats an ailment the soldier has? If they would be a detriment to the mission without say... their blood pressure medication or insulin, the navy would let them board without said medication? They wouldn't require them to take their medication?
 
rivrrat said:
Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it never will, mr. psychic.
Click to expand...

You be sure and let me know when it does exist. Cool?

And not all IUDs have hormone releases. Though, IMO, any woman in her right mind would choose the hormone one over the non-hormone one.
Click to expand...

Either way, you can force a female service member to use birth control.

But let me get this straight: Under no circumstances could the navy require someone to take medication in order to serve on a sub? Even if that medication treats an ailment the soldier has? If they would be a detriment to the mission without say... their blood pressure medication or insulin, the navy would let them board without said medication? They wouldn't require them to take their medication?
Click to expand...

A sailor on blood pressure medicine, or insulin probably wouldn't be allowed to serve on a submarine.
 
apdst said:
You be sure and let me know when it does exist. Cool?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you'll find out about it. Just like when women got to vote and were allowed to join the military. Things change, we progress.

Either way, you can force a female service member to use birth control.
Click to expand...
So you keep you saying. I disagree. Used to be that you couldn't allow a female to serve at all. Things change.


A sailor on blood pressure medicine, or insulin probably wouldn't be allowed to serve on a submarine.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that discrimination? :shock: :rofl
 
rivrrat said:
I'm sure you'll find out about it. Just like when women got to vote and were allowed to join the military. Things change, we progress.


So you keep you saying. I disagree. Used to be that you couldn't allow a female to serve at all. Things change.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you want, but out here in the real world, it just ain't gonna happen. Besides, I don't see how violating a serviceman's rights is, "progress".


A sailor on blood pressure medicine, or insulin probably wouldn't be allowed to serve on a submarine.
Click to expand...
Isn't that discrimination? :shock: :rofl[/QUOTE]

No, it's for the safety of that sailor and the crew. What if that sailor became insulin deficient, or blacked out during a real world scenario, like a missile launch, or an attack on the ship? What if, for whatever reason, he can't take his meds?

It's no more discrimination than not allowing a person who takes blood pressure medicine, or is on insulin to fly an aircraft.
 
rivrrat said:
There is no evidence. The only evidence he has is of discrimination in the military. He has evidence that the standards were lowered (big shocker that none of us dispute that standards were lowered). He has absolutely no evidence contrary to what the rest of us have actually been talking about.
Click to expand...

Then please point out the evidence to the contrary? I have also pointed out the same thing in the civilian sector, so that makes your comment a fabrication at best.

I know you can't and will not since no one else has, but I am giving yet another opportunity.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Depends on what you mean by field. Working in a field hospital would've been quite easy; but working as a combat medic would've required some serious physical re-training and at least 4 months training to change MOS's.

When I was in Korea, I was assigned to 8th Army and we never did PT, never ran, and never went to the field. The same couldn't be said for medics assigned to the 2nd Inf Div. Those guys did PT every day, ran 2 miles every day and were frequently in the field.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to repeat that the mission has changed since the 70's.

It is not the same. It has changed a ****load from when I was in, in the 80's and early 90's.

No cushy job anymore. You rotate just like everyone else.

Every combat solder from medic to the lowest clerk is a combat solder.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
What the problems WILL be? You mean being a vet makes you psychic?
Click to expand...

No. What it does do is give us insite you will never have.

It would be like me trying to tell you the reason white water rafting is not dangerous even though I have never done it.
 
Since people want to ignore the actual argument put forward, here it is again for your consideration...

Fact: In every case military & civilian, every single one the standards (physical) have been reduced for females.

Fact: Multiple people have been asked to show just one example of where this did not happen. The best they could do was a few ad-hom's.

Fact: The standard for females are to low for any combat arms MOS. Any man who cannot make the minimum is washed out. Females standards are even lower.

Fact: Women are physically on average weaker than men, not by a little either. If it were not a fact, women could play in the same sports as men. They don't compete against men for a reason.

Those are the facts.

Anyone ready to address them yet? With a little evidence?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom