10 January 2013

A Complex Solution To A Simple Problem

Facing a staggering 74 percent unintended pregnancy rate, the Navy has launched a family planning awareness and information campaign.
The Navy’s peer-mentoring program Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions is holding informational sessions on family planning throughout January covering topics that include parental leave, operational deferment and the best forms of birth control.

It’s been well-established on numerous occasions that female soldiers/sailors/marines/etc. are nowhere near as qualified for military service as men. There have been numerous complaints over the past couple of decades how the constant push to include women in the armed forces has dumbed down the standards of the armed forces.  Now the problem is worse, not only are America’s armed forces weakened, they are dealing with what should have been an easily foreseen problem.  When women and men are kept in close proximity to one another, it shouldn’t be surprising if they start boning.  And it shouldn’t be surprising if their boning leads to pregnancies.

Now, there is no need to have detailed informational sessions on family planning.  The problem of unwanted pregnancies in the armed forces is really not all that complex, and therefore does not require that complex a solution.  If the Navy is concerned about the sheer number of unwanted pregnancies it has to deal with, the easiest solution is to disallow women from serving alongside men in the Navy.  War is a man’s business, and those men who are responsible for defending the country cannot afford to be distracted by women, or by said women’s occasional unwanted pregnancies.


  1. I'd take this survey result with a bit of salt. Take it from someone who knows - young enlisted servicemembers are notoriously bad at correctly interpreting the words of survey questions - especially about anything involving sex. Most sociological tests involving them have such low internal consistency that the Cronbach alphas are less than 0.6 - unacceptably low for almost any other area of research. What's supposed to happen is a randomized follow-up multiple-choice to test for interpretation of meaning in the survey audience. If they're all over the place - or consistently different from what the researcher meant to test for (which is, in fact, what you actually see all the time), then the study or survey needs to be redesigned. If it's not iterative in this manner - don't trust it.

    Here, the follow-up question is obviously "what does 'planned' mean to you?" There's obviously a big difference between the spectrum of options of "purposefully trying to conceive", "if it happens, that'd be ok." and "absolutely did not want to get pregnant but failed to take the necessary precautions for whatever reason." Obviously, the latter explanation is of more concern than the middle one.

    Anyway, in the Army, when single women get pregnant, they can ask and almost always receive an immediate honorable discharge with all benefits even if they didn't fulfill their terms. If they want to stay in, they still have to have a "family care plan" (that is - someone willing and able and designated in advance and given power of attorney to be guardian of the child if the woman had to deploy). If they don't have an approved plan - they are to be involuntarily separated from the service.

  2. I would think if they took away the incentive of being honorably discharged with full bene's it would lessen the pregnancy occurances. Also, since they get mandatory innoculations in boot camp, the women can have the norplant b.c. implanted (5 year effective rate) and if they wish to have it removed, out they go. Won't stop STD's but will stop "unplanned" pregnancies.