Baby birth shock for soldier on Afghanistan deployment

whydave

A British servicewoman has given birth to a baby boy in Afghanistan having not realised she was pregnant."Mother and baby are both in a stable condition," said the Ministry of Defence, following the birth on Tuesday in Camp Bastion, Helmand province.The woman, a Royal Artillery gunner who has not been named by the MoD, only learned she was about to give birth after complaining of stomach pains.The child was conceived before she arrived in Afghanistan in March.In a statement, the MoD said: "It is not military policy to allow servicewomen to deploy on operations if they are pregnant. In this instance the MoD was unaware of her pregnancy.".........
This unusual case may well fuel further debate over whether more medical checks are needed before the armed forces deploy women to the front lines."
So the point is should Women be in front line service ?
From here

OS119

whydave wrote: »

So the point is should Women be in front line service ?

whyever not?

is there anything in the news which suggests that she was unable to do her job, or that any of the other hundreds of women currently serving in Afghanistan are unable to do their jobs because they have a womb?

she had a medical problem and her tour got cut short, in exactly the same way as if she'd had an appendicitis, or cancer.

there will be women ending tours in the next week who have defused IED's, who have lead search teams, who have mentored Afghan Police and Army units, women who have brought in Air and Artillery fire support, women who have translated for foot patrols, women who have provided medical care in a ditch while being shot at, women who have lead 300+ vehicle convoys through the desert, women who have flown AH-64's, Chinooks, Merlins, Lynx and C-130's, women who have built patrol bases and infrastrucure - not a few of whom will have fired more rounds in anger than the whole of the Irish Army in the last 50 years, so no, i see no possible reason as to why anyone should think that women shouldn't serve on the front line.

ChunkyLover_53

This says more about the Medical Examination carried out prior to Overseas Deployment then it does about Womens capability in the military

OS119 wrote: »

... - not a few of whom will have fired more rounds in anger than the whole of the Irish Army in the last 50 years...

The Irish Army don't fire "rounds in anger" they train their troops to keep a cool head & use reasonable force where necessary.

No point wasting all that ammo when a few boxes of rations & a jerry can of diesel will keep the locals sweet for the weekend.

Manic Moran

OS119 wrote: »

whyever not?she had a medical problem and her tour got cut short, in exactly the same way as if she'd had an appendicitis, or cancer.

Not quite sure that it qualifies as a 'medical problem.'

And it's not as if there aren't screenings done for all sorts of medical problems before one gets sent overseas in the first place. Absolutely, things crop up, there's nothing one can do about it, but for example, the dentists seem to be very eager to pull out my wisdom tooth on the basis that it has a good likelihood to become a problem during the deployment. It's an identifiable risk to manning levels. Pregant females should be the same, even if you agree with the idea that the unborn should be subjected to battlefield hazards.

Manic Moran

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

The Irish Army don't fire "rounds in anger" they train their troops to keep a cool head & use reasonable force where necessary.

It's a common turn of phrase, similar to 'on the two-way firing range.' It just means 'in a live situation, not in training'

NTM

Jawgap

Surely competence rather than gender should dictate whether someone is allowed to deploy or not?

I think the 'medical issue' of pregnancy in the context of a pre-deployment check is different as the vast majority of women would know (or at least suspect enough to take a test) if they are pregnant, and would not want to hazard the unborn baby's health by heading off on a strenuous deployment. It normally wouldn't require a significant medical exam.

I presume if the baby is a boy it'll be called "Se-bastion"

OS119

Jawgap wrote: »

...I presume if the baby is a boy it'll be called "Se-bastion"

the current bets are 'Stan', 'Sandy', or 'Terry'.

the only pre-deployment check that would note her pregnancy would be a, wait for it... pregnancy test. most women take such a test before they go, but a) they don't always take one however long you need to wait after your last shag, and b) pregnancy tests are not gospel. my wife was pissing on sticks 4 months into her (blindingly obvious) first pregnancy and only half of them said she was pregnant.

its all a big 'meh' from me...

davetherave

It's nothing to do with females serving on the front line. It's just as Os119 said, a medical incident. It's not like she intentionally got pregnant to avoid deployment.
What about the snco who recently had to be airlifted back from leb in the learjet due to a condition that the MO should have picked up on. Should all senior Ncos be allowed overseas.

Manach

I'd agree with OP, that women should not be in front line positions. It goes against historical norms (IMHO) and seeks to impose a modern theory of equality of all which might effect combat effectiveness.

OS119

Manach wrote: »

...which might effect combat effectiveness.

except that Armies who have women serving in frontline roles, and who are actually fighting wars, don't find that it effects combat effectiveness.

so, either you have tested your hypothosis and found it to be incorrect - that women in frontline units negatively effects combat effectiveness - or you don't like the idea of girlies doing the job (with the possible exception of Infantry, but only due to the weights being carried and the physical strength required of Infantry soldiers) as well as a bloke.

Jawgap

I believe Admiral Fitzwallace (in the West Wing ) summed it up well (on the question of unit cohesiveness being impacted by wider societal ideas of equality)......

Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
Major Tate: No sir, I don't.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago - blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick.

whydave

Manach wrote: »

I'd agree with OP, that women should not be in front line positions.

Point of order : I only posed a question !