Single mom refuses deployment to care for infant son

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Single mom refuses deployment to care for infant son
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=34000845�

I’m torn, I really am torn. This is an all volunteer ARMY, she knew she might have to go to war, she got pregnant anyway or joined anyway then refuses to do her duty. If women want equal rights then they should not expect special treatment. Our tax dollars go to train people who COMMIT to being a soldier. They receive thousands and thousands in training that we had to pay for. Now all of that matters not because she claims she has no child care.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I agree. These people know what it entails to be in the military and they agree to it in order to serve and get the benefits. It doesn't do a thing for women's rights when people do things like this.

What you always have to look at is that the person who would have to fill her slot may also have family obligations.

Quite, I recall that when this last woman made a stink:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6986800

Now her situation was a bit different however someone had to fill her spot because she refused to live up to her LEGAL CONTRACT. If that were a man with the same excuse the same compassion would be nil IMO.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

That's the real question. Why can't men come up with the same excuse? Women will never get the full respect in business or the military as long as they try to appear weak and use the mother card.

IMO it weakens women’s arguments in being equal about being in the military in the first place. Then we have women who purposely get pregnant so as not to go to war or to return early from war. It is wrong on so many levels and we as taxpayers foot the bill, while other soldiers are expected to pick up the slack.

[snookums1]

Upon the birth of my daughter's 3rd child, she chose not to re-inlist for another term. Not because she was a mother, but because her husband was also military and that could mean both of them being sent to war and killed and 3 kids not knowing either parent. It is something every soldier, whether father or mother, thinks about and faces. Children need their fathers too so it is a darn good thing fathers don't use that as an excuse to refuse to serve to stay home with their children.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

That is the thing. They should make these people pay back the remainder of their contract and any costs of training. They also should never get a discharge where they continue to receive benefits.

I would imagine it would affect moral. There are many men who do not want to leave their families and put themselves at risk. Why should they sacrifice when someone else doesn't have to?

I agree one hundred percent. IF they choose not to fulfill the legal contract they made, then they need to pay back the money spent and they need to lose their benifits, period.

It is unfair, for we are taxpayers to be fooled by these people looking for a free ride. No 50 grand for college, no benifits, no if's and's or but's.

[snookums1]

:ohmy: The ever ubiquitous "they." How absurd.

read ... there is no benefit to resigning. Please check your facts.

Even the military realizes circumstances change. Look up compassionate discharge.

:lol: "You" the taxpayer? If money were the issue, why didn't you stop GWB? The only time there is a benefit is if you are career and serve your required amount of time to qualify. Then you get a pension just like some large corporations pay pensions. Daughter never got a dime for her years of service. No perks at all. The only reason her hubby gets any is because he served 24 years before retirement, high officer status, last year.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

It's really more unfair to those who are fulfilling their obligations.

Yes, it is, I agree!

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The only time there is a benefit is if you are career and serve your required amount of time to qualify. Then you get a pension just like some large corporations pay pensions. Daughter never got a dime for her years of service. No perks at all.


Thank your daughter for her service from me if you don't mind and thank you for being a military mom/dad.

Your daughter did not get any GI Bill benefits at all? No college benefits no Veterans schooling? Those have been in effect for at least 20-30 years.

[snookums1]

IMO it weakens women’s arguments in being equal about being in the military in the first place. Then we have women who purposely get pregnant so as not to go to war or to return early from war. It is wrong on so many levels and we as taxpayers foot the bill, while other soldiers are expected to pick up the slack.A. Did she get purposely pregnant? B. What bill do we taxpayers pick up? Seriously, I would really like to know. I mean, most of mine are military but my daughter left early after the birth of her third child, when her second term was up and she is not getting any benefits at all. If she is elegible for some, I could let her know.

[snookums1]

:patriot: Yes, the difference between retirement and resigning.

In your experience with the miltary and mine, given the OP, should the military turn their backs, when circumstances change? Mine continued to serve until they could legally leave because their time was up. My daughter made arrangements with relatives to look after the kids until then. Now, if there are no relatives, I have known the military to send a father home to raise his child. It all depends on the circumstance. I have known the military to send a soldier home on leave from Iraq when his wife had a miscarriage too. This is not a sex thing, it is a thing of compassion in a time of need.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

:patriot: Yes, the difference between retirement and resigning.

In your experience with the miltary and mine, given the OP, should the military turn their backs, when circumstances change?

The baby is only eleven months old. She KNEW she would/could be called to war so nothing changed if she had him before her entry and when she decided to get pregnant. She should have thought of all of that before signing a CONTRACT. Not to mention one must have a family care plan which involves more than one care provider- not just her mother. The baby’s father is where? The baby’s paternal grandparents are where?

The military gets sued by the ACLU for not allowing single parents (for this very reason) in for discrimination-- we as taxpayers pay for it either way... she should not have entered and I am glad they are not allowed in once again.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

A. Did she get purposely pregnant? B. What bill do we taxpayers pick up? Seriously, I would really like to know. I mean, most of mine are military but my daughter left early after the birth of her third child, when her second term was up and she is not getting any benefits at all. If she is elegible for some, I could let her know.



The baby is only eleven months old. She KNEW she would/could be called to war so nothing changed if she had him before her entry and when she decided to get pregnant. She should have thought of all of that before signing a CONTRACT. Not to mention one must have a family care plan which involves more than one care provider- not just her mother. The baby’s father is where? The baby’s paternal grandparents are where?

What bill do we taxpayers pick up?:confused:

Where do you think all the money comes from to train soldiers? Where do you think the GI bill money comes from soldiers benifits.

We spend as taxpayers a half million alone on one soldier just to train "grunts"-- for a year-- no real skill set base.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_of_training_a_soldier_in_the_mili tary

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/2008MilitaryPayCharts35.pdf

She is a cook, so we spent about a half million over a years time to send her to boot camp and AIT and follow up courses for weapons training etc. She also I'm sure qualifys for the GI bill.

So she drops out and now we need to retain another to take her place...

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The original GI Bill was post WWII, making that 60+ years. Do your google/homework and learn how much has been taken away from our veterans since, if you care.

You just breezed right past where I wrote:

"at least 20-30 years" didnt you. LMAO!! You assume so much, you know what they say about assumptions! You’re screaming you’re a veteran every five seconds does nothing for your case in trying to convince me "you know your stuff".

[snookums1]

The baby is only eleven months old. She KNEW she would/could be called to war so nothing changed if she had him before her entry and when she decided to get pregnant. She should have thought of all of that before signing a CONTRACT. Not to mention one must have a family care plan which involves more than one care provider- not just her mother. The baby’s father is where? The baby’s paternal grandparents are where?

The military gets sued by the ACLU for not allowing single parents (for this very reason) in for discrimination-- we as taxpayers pay for it either way... she should not have entered and I am glad they are not allowed in once again. Sometimes people don't decide to get pregnant. Sometimes BC does not work, for whatever reason. But, if someone can care for the child in her absence, she should serve, no matter where that service takes her. But another thing you need to consider is this, in a time of war, soldiers have to depend on each other for their very survival. If she does not want to be there, if she is constantly thinking of her child instead of her job, just how good of a soldier do you think she will make? And will others be able to rely on her?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Sometimes people don't decide to get pregnant. Sometimes BC does not work, for whatever reason. But, if someone can care for the child in her absence, she should serve, no matter where that service takes her. But another thing you need to consider is this, in a time of war, soldiers have to depend on each other for their very survival. If she does not want to be there, if she is constantly thinking of her child instead of her job, just how good of a soldier do you think she will make? And will others be able to rely on her?

And my point is when women use this argument as she does it sets women’s rights back-- far, single parents don't walk into Wall Street and annoince they will not finish a job because they have children.

As far as thinking of her child and not wanting to be there. I am sure every soldier thinks of their loved ones and that is a concern, period. I am not aware of many soldier who think " I wish I was in Iraq or Afghanistan" many do not wish to be there and for whatever reason-- if everyone got a pass where would we be? Back to the draft IMO>

[snookums1]

The baby is only eleven months old. She KNEW she would/could be called to war so nothing changed if she had him before her entry and when she decided to get pregnant. She should have thought of all of that before signing a CONTRACT. Not to mention one must have a family care plan which involves more than one care provider- not just her mother. The baby’s father is where? The baby’s paternal grandparents are where?

What bill do we taxpayers pick up?:confused:

Where do you think all the money comes from to train soldiers? Where do you think the GI bill money comes from soldiers benifits.

We spend as taxpayers a half million alone on one soldier just to train "grunts"-- for a year-- no real skill set base.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_of_training_a_soldier_in_the_mili tary

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/2008MilitaryPayCharts35.pdf

She is a cook, so we spent about a half million over a years time to send her to boot camp and AIT and follow up courses for weapons training etc. She also I'm sure qualifys for the GI bill.

So she drops out and now we need to retain another to take her place... That is the second reason I was against the unnecessary war in Iraq. Loss of life was the first, but that is neither here nor there. You started this saying you were torn. I am not torn at all. I have children that had children and continued their service. The age of the child does not really matter. Children need us from birth to adulthood. Because you have a child is no reason to refuse to go to war. Fathers do it all the time. They are important too. Many mothers are now serving, away from their children. But unless they remain a long time and retire, the taxpayer dime is safe. She will not get any perks at all for being a quitter. In fact, all she will get is a bad review on any job she applies for in the future.

[snookums1]

And my point is when women use this argument as she does it sets women’s rights back-- far, single parents don't walk into Wall Street and annoince they will not finish a job because they have children.

As far as thinking of her child and not wanting to be there. I am sure every soldier thinks of their loved ones and that is a concern, period. I am not aware of many soldier who think " I wish I was in Iraq or Afghanistan" many do not wish to be there and for whatever reason-- if everyone got a pass where would we be? Back to the draft IMO> She is one woman. It took a lot of women, banded together to achieve anything remotely resembling women's rights. One woman, unless she is in the spotlight, is not going to set women's rights back. She will be viewed for what she is, a quitter. When people do not complete their obligations, whether male or female, that is how they are viewed.

[snookums1]

You're exactly right. It is the same in the business world. People have to make sacrifices in order to achieve success. Fulfilling their obligations and a little planning goes a long way to that goal. It doesn't serve anyone when someone wants equal pay, benefits and responsibilities and then they back down on that.

Your point is right. If there was a draft, it may be different. I know of many people who missed the first year of their child's life, as well as other times. And I know many that volunteered that missed their child's birth and first years. I also know some that went home because they were needed there. The military let them go. It depends on the circumstance. Leave it up to them. They usually get it right.

[Not Telling]

She is one woman. It took a lot of women, banded together to achieve anything remotely resembling women's rights. One woman, unless she is in the spotlight, is not going to set women's rights back. She will be viewed for what she is, a quitter. When people do not complete their obligations, whether male or female, that is how they are viewed.

Yep! A quitter just like Sarah Palin who didn't fulfill her obligations as Governor...

[ShooFly]

:ohmy: The ever ubiquitous "they." How absurd.

read ... there is no benefit to resigning. Please check your facts.

Even the military realizes circumstances change. Look up compassionate discharge.

:lol: "You" the taxpayer? If money were the issue, why didn't you stop GWB?

:thumbsup:

[ninetoes]

It's really more unfair to those who are fulfilling their obligations.

As my commander always told us...

"If the Army wanted you to have a baby, they would have issued you one".

If we are going to say single parents are now exempt from deployment, where will that leave us when it comes to being "mission ready"?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Yep! A quitter just like Sarah Palin who didn't fulfill her obligations as Governor...

LOL As opposed to Rod Blagojevich who was impeached for trying to sell congressional seats. Please, this has nothing to do with Palin why try to change the subject? For the life of me I can’t understand why the left seems so fearful of her they mention her daily to put her down.

[syringa]

I think it was Desert Storm and prior to deployment pregnancies among women went up 17%, sorry couldn't find a link. It was obvious by getting pregnant these females got out of being deployed to Iraq. Women can't have it both ways, demand equal pay in one breath and then cry but I'm just a girl in the next. Then again maybe they can and that's the reason for the small pay disparity between men and women. As long as women and children are first to be evacuated in a fire or sinking ship, or always negotiated for first in a hostage situation, or getting released from a military commitment because they are pregnant, then maybe men are owed the extra $1.00/hr.

There probably will never be absolute equality since there really are differences in the sexes. Women can attempt to get out of deployments by getting pregnant - men have to do something less pleasureable to get out, like break a leg or shoot thmesleves in the foot.

The women inthe OP has had a long time to determine care for her son who is 10 months old. she is being given extra time to revise her child care since her first choice fell through. It does no one any good for her to be sent to the brig - that would leave the baby without care too. If she gets out on a dishonorable discharge, we have a single unemployed woman on government assistance.

IMO - she needs to allow for her son to be put into foster care while doing her job. Hopefully they can find a good foster family who will honor the mother's service and make sure there is good contact with mother and son while she is away.