I’d buy that if a constant in a woman’s life was being pregnant. But for the most part, women spend their lives UN-pregnant. So what you really have a problem with is some women’s decision making skills, or judgement issues. Forcing birth control on people is an insanely extreme suggestion, and yes it leaves me a touch disgusted.
Decision making and judgement are wholly different than gender. Poor decisions are not exclusive of one gender or another either, or men wouldn’t be allowed in combat.
I also never knew that ADD was a disqualifier for service, Doors. How does that work with other mental conditions, like depression that requires, say, Wellbutrin?
Can you have been treated for ADD in the past, and currently not be on medication for it, and be OK to serve, or would any history of it disqualify you?
Is the military OK with you if you have ADD, as long as you’re not on medication for it?
Just wondering. It’d never occurred to me until today that ADD would be a dealbreaker …
No biggie, GaWd, we were bound to find SOMETHING we disagreed about eventually.
Abbie, I believe he’s referring specifically to people taking Ritalin being ineligible for flight crews, radar operations, sub duty & special forces. There are some VERY strict requirements for those areas. There are plenty of people in the military taking Antibuse, which is also a controlled substance, so I doubt Ritalin makes it a no deal.
And now all you have to do is show me where in this thread I defended DADT. I agreed with one point that Mr. Moto made, other than that I have specifically avoided addressing any aspect of DADT in this thread for a myriad of reasons.
Abbie, all branches of the military go through what is called MEPS, the Military Enlistment Processing Station, and they do a thorough physical and medical history. Ritalin is almost always a dealbreaker, barring really unusual circumstances. The irony of it all is that once in you can be prescribed all sorts of anti-depressants and stuff like that, the difference being that after they take you they’re responsible for you. They will toss you out for lying about a pre-existing condition, but if it happened while you were on duty they’ll cover it.
GaWd, I’m not suggesting forcing it on anyone. I’m suggesting making it a condition of enlistment. You do realize that it is an all-volunteer military, right? If they want it bad enough then they’ll agree to the conditions, otherwise they walk away. That’s not forcing anything on anyone.
Antabuse is not a controlled substance. It has no mood- or mind-altering effects, aside from making alcohol consumption very unpleasant.
Ritalin, OTOH, does have mood- or mind-altering effects, and is a very common drug of abuse. It’s not something you want to run out of on the battlefield.
<minor hijack>Excuse me. Antabuse definitely is a controlled substance. It requires a prescription, and falls under the Controlled Substances Act <end hijack>
So what you’re saying is that a) women should be forced to take contraception against their will OR submit to a second-class status, and b) that a woman who is married or in some other stable relationship should not only forgo motherhood but her husband/partner (should he be military) face court-martial for what social conservatives argue is the point of marriage. How about we just make it outright illegal for military women to have a relationship that may result in pregnancy in the first place? Well, I guess that leaves same-sex relationships, and THOSE are out.
How about we work it this way: Women who want to be in combatant roles should be responsible for themselves. Lord knows we can take that challenge on. :rolleyes:
Robin
[sub]The :rolleyes: was for Airman, who may very well find himself on the sofa for his attitude.[/sub]
The link didn’t work for me. However, I talked to my father, who is a pharmacist with a specialty and training in psychiatric pharmacology, and he said that it is a prescription drug that is not a scheduled controlled substance, at least, not in the same way that Ritalin (a schedule II drug) is.
And, on further discussion, I was whooshed by Airman’s previous post. My humblest apologies.
Ritalin, OTOH, does have mood- or mind-altering effects, and is a very common drug of abuse.
True. However, those who are on it for ADD aren’t the ones abusing it. I think “Ritalin abuse” and I think of speed freaks who hit up their friendly neighborhood drug dealer. People who actually NEED Ritalin aren’t getting a buzz off of it.
It’s not something you want to run out of on the battlefield.
I’m on Adderall, which is a step up from Ritalin. If I miss a dose, sure, I can’t hold onto a thought worth shit that day, but I’m not going to go through withdrawal or anything remotely life threatening.
The armed forces are no place to play ‘Social Experiment’. If it reduces combat effectives, steps need to be taken to eliminate that problem, and damned the ‘fair play’.
What the article doesn’t tell you that the vast majority of discharges for homosexuality are Soldier initiated, not as a result of government persecution, especially since 2001. I would suspect that since 1994, the vast majority of homosexual discharges are initiated by servicemembers, too. I have the opportunity to serve as counsel for Soldiers, and it becomes quite obvious to me that they are either gay or lesbian. And what do I do? Nothing. I let them Soldier on.
And, generally speaking, they do a damn fine job of it…
Maybe the withdrawal won’t be life-threatening for you, but in the stress of battle, or even a simulation, your inability to “hold onto a thought worth shit” could cost yourself or someone else their life if you get distracted enough to not be able to do your job.
Some medical conditions are automatically disqualifying because a combat situation is the last place you want to deal with an attack. People with asthma and epilepsy, for example, are disqualified because stress and lack of supply lines leading to lack of medication can bring on an asthma attack or a seizure. You don’t want to have to worry about getting Pvt. Smith to a nebulizer when your unit is in the middle of an ambush. Similarly, you don’t want Seaman Jones to have a seizure when part of your ship is on fire. (The Navy uses strobe lights as warning lights.)
It really is that simple.
BTW, I’ve heard anecdotal stories about kids who get themselves on Ritalin just so they can sell it. For a relatively low insurance co-pay, they can make themselves a tidy profit. And if they get caught, well, their name’s on the bottle.
So then you’re in favor of repealing DADT so that these shirkers will be forced to do their duty, right?
You are I’m sure familiar with stop-loss orders? As I understand it, any servicemember may be retained pretty much without recourse for as long as the military desires it. There is no guarantee that declaring fake homosexuality would get one discharged anyway.
The policy sucks.
Or it means that they joined up either to have the Army “make a real man out of them” or they didn’t know they were gay when they joined up or they knew they were gay but understood that gay people are allowed to serve while closeted but could no longer pay the psychological price of living in the closet or they simply feel that they should be allowed to serve without the dishonor of lying.
And so what if the only reason they enlisted was for the benefits? have you seen military advertising over the last decade or more? The advertising makes it clear that a major attraction of joining up is the benefits.
In which case there’s no guarantee that declaring true homosexuality would result in dismissal, either. They either take all such claims seriously or they take none of them seriously, in which case the problem goes away.
The benefits are great, but you joined the military, not the local college. You can’t take the college money and then change your mind when you are told to go somewhere and fight. That is about as cowardly an act as ever was.
Look very carefully back at my posts, and try to find where I defended DADT.
I’m open to the idea of gays openly serving. But I think it can only be done in an environment where sexual misconduct of all kinds is punished much more than it is now. I agree fully with Diogenes on this issue.
I also think branding people looking at this issue carefully within the military establishment as a group of bigots misses the mark entirely. The military is not a fair hiring program. You cannot judge it by the same rules as the rest of society. That is the point I have been trying to make this entire thread.
I find it hypocritical, too, that someone who stereotypes military culture and military members as “rednecks,” “psychopaths” and a “straight man’s club” should so smugly call others on their supposedly bigotry. Perhaps the military has problems, but you’re hardly in a moral position to point them out.
I should have written, “Hasn’t got the guts to actually take a stand on the issue, and contents himself by making veiled comments that obliquely compare homosexuals to deserters, without actually addressing the fact that any problems created by DADT could be solved by repealing the stupid rule.”
Sure i am. I merely noted that such people exist in the military. Are you denying that they do?
I never said that all people in the military were rednecks, psychopaths, or a “straight man’s club.” I merely suggested that those people appear to be setting the agenda for the way gays and women are treated.
I specifically stated that the rednecks etc. needed to be “clean[ed] out,” which implies that there are plenty of non-rednecks that would remain in the military after the fuck-knuckles are kicked out. Also, regarding the “straight men’s club,” i specifically stated that it was “some military people” who were responsible for this, not all military people.
Actually, I’m avoiding the topic because a) there’s nothing I can do about it, b) I have no desire to get into a fight over this, and c) I am getting a strange sort of satisfaction from your attempts to pick a fight with me.
And I never compared homosexuals with deserters. You made that comparison by trying to pin it on me.
