The outrage expressed by women’s groups over the Army’s announced intention to discipline and even court-martial female soldiers who become pregnant in war zones was as predictable as a sunrise. It also carries political firepower, and public appeal.
The complaints are, however, ethically nonsensical. It is neither fair nor logical nor practical to blithely excuse women from procreating themselves out of their military commitments, either voluntarily or negligently.
It should not be the military’s concern how or why enlisted soldiers incapacitate themselves sufficiently to become unfit for combat. The point is that they do incapacitate themselves, and that to do so is a dereliction of duty. A woman can choose to become pregnant, but she may not choose to do so in a work environment where the lives of others and the security of her nation depend on her being fit and able. She has a duty to be combat-ready. If she chooses to join the military in a combat setting, she has chosen not to have the option of pregnancy, and to be a soldier first.
A male soldier who shot off his big toe to get out of combat, or just because he liked shooting his toes, or always wanted four toes on his left foot, would be subject to discipline. No U.S. Senators would be up in arms, because it’s an irresponsible act. A woman becoming pregnant is no different, except that someone helped her with the equivalent of shooting off her toe. That person is culpable as well. Obviously, no punishment would be appropriate for a female soldier who became pregnant after involuntary sexual activity. That is not the issue here, and never was.
Full of self-righteousness, as NOW presidents tend to be, NOW President Terry O’Neill thundered, “How dare any government say we’re going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant? This is not the 1800s.” That’s right, Ms. O’Neill: in the 1880s, women weren’t permitted to be soldiers. Women like you fought for that form of discrimination to change, arguing that a woman could do anything a man could do, and that argument prevailed. With every right comes responsibility, and with the right of serving in combat for their country, American women acquired the duty and responsibility of not engaging in conduct that incapacitates them from doing their other duties. That includes getting pregnant. There is nothing sacred or special about getting pregnant for female soldiers, unless they are willing to give up the right to be soldiers at all.
Ethics Alarms 
I don’t even understand why this is controversial, I really don’t.
If women want to be free to get pregnant anytime, I suggest a bank job. Defending our country requires that we give up some things, like working where we want, quitting, having regular vacations, etc.
These are all rights we enjoy in the civilian world, but when we sign up for the military, we have to put them aside for the greater good of the country.
The greater good. Now there is a term the leftist NOW gang should be able to wrap their heads around. But I guess it only applies when they want it to.
I agree completely, Glenn—I don’t get it. I heard a former female Jag officer screaming about this, and she made no sense either. She kept saying things like, “And what about the men? What happens to them?” Well, either the woman figers them as the father and they share her fate, or she doesn’t, and it’s her “choice.” And, “The Army is telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies now?”
WHAT? Yes, the Army owns you while you are doing your service, and you don’t have the “right” to get pregnant, gain 100 pounds, or saw off your arm, like you would as a private citizen, any more.
Don’t want to get court martialed? Don’t have sex. Don’t want to not have sex? Don’t join the Army. Why is this so hard?
Nice post. I would point out, however, that it is not just the enlisted women who could potentially “incompacitate themselves” out of doing their duty.
I think that’s both implicit, covered and obvious, KC.
“It should not be the military’s concern how or why enlisted soldiers incapacitate themselves sufficiently to become unfit for combat. The point is that they do incapacitate themselves, and that to do so is a dereliction of duty.”
My bad. I was looking only at the explicit.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you mean that the post ignores the fact that women who get pregnant have assistance incapacitating themselves, I didn’t think it did, but I also don’t think it makes any difference as long as the woman is a voluntary part of the operation. Obviously, a woman impregnated involuntarily did not incapacitate herself, and should not be punished.
I’m simply stating that officers have ovaries, too.