military personel making babies during a war

[AKR]

i'm watching 60 minutes and it has this lady on their who met with her husband for the specific purpose of making a baby before he was deployed to iraq. this digusts and disturbs me greatly. anyone else bothered by this? i think regular child birth into this kind of a world is bad enough, but to purposefully make a baby who faces a strong chance of never seeing his father? plain f*cked up. i would like to hunt these people down and sterilize them.

i'm tired of seeing young men being deployed, while they leave pregnant women and infants behind. if you join the military, especially during a time of war, DON'T MAKE BABIES.

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by AKR

i'm watching 60 minutes and it has this lady on their who met with her husband for the specific purpose of making a baby before he was deployed to iraq. this digusts and disturbs me greatly. anyone else bothered by this?

No, its a very human thing to do it has happend in every war in every nation throughtout history

Originally Posted by AKR

but to purposefully make a baby who faces a strong chance of never seeing his father? plain f*cked up.

Lets take a low number say 500,000 have cycled in and out of both Wars.

OEF 390 KIA
http://www.icasualties.org/oef/
OIF 3454 KIA
http://icasualties.org/oif/

That means each person has a 0.007688 chance of not coming back, you consider this a strong chance?

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

No, its a very human thing to do

So anything "human" is okay?

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by sheduma

So anything "human" is okay?

blah not what I said, THIS thing is very human and is OK to do.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

No, its a very human thing to do it has happend in every war in every nation throughtout history

oh, well then, i guess all things "human" are ok.

Lets take a low number say 500,000 have cycled in and out of both Wars.

OEF 390 KIA
http://www.icasualties.org/oef/
OIF 3454 KIA
http://icasualties.org/oif/

That means each person has a 0.007688 chance of not coming back, you consider this a strong chance?

it's a hell of a lot higher of a chance than someone not in a war. also, the simple fact that they are gone from the lives of their children is a problem in and of itself. what kind of a sicko makes a baby and then says, "see ya. i'm off to possibly get killed in a war!"

and what about the risk of being handicapped? we all know the military isn't going to take care of those people, so how will these families pay the bills, especially with a new baby?

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

blah not what I said, THIS thing is very human and is OK to do.

Why? You didn't give any argument for it other than that it was human. What about it makes it okay?

[AKR]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

blah not what I said, THIS thing is very human and is OK to do.

why is it ok? simply saying it's ok does not make it ok. what seems like a better idea: make a baby before going off to do something really dangerous, or wait, and make a baby when you come home from that situation? wtf is the piont of making a baby before you go off to do something you quite possibly won't return from? some of these people are going to some of the most dangerous places in the world. you can throw all the numbers you want at me, but the fact is, some of these people are going through the f*cking "triangle" every day, and their risks of dying are huge. it's just plain stupid.

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by AKR

oh, well then, i guess all things "human" are ok.

blah not what I said

Originally Posted by AKR

it's a hell of a lot higher of a chance than someone not in a war

Thats not the question nor what you posted about, stop avoiding the subject.

Originally Posted by AKR

. also, the simple fact that they are gone from the lives of their children is a problem in and of itself.

Really any back up for your statements? Say that it is bad for a father to be away for say the first six months of a childs life

Originally Posted by AKR

what kind of a sicko makes a baby and then says, "see ya. i'm off to possibly get killed in a war!"

As I have shown going to the war DOES NOT EQUAL GETTING KILLED. I know you will continue to post this arguement again and again so I will continue to repeat myself.

Originally Posted by AKR

and what about the risk of being handicapped?

What about it? Wait is this just another attempt to aviod the topic, oh I see it is

Originally Posted by AKR

we all know the military isn't going to take care of those people, so how will these families pay the bills, especially with a new baby?

You're right the military won't take care of them...the VA does.

Once again because you avoided it the first time

That means each person has a 0.007688 chance of not coming back, you consider this a strong chance?

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by AKR

why is it ok?

It is natural to do when going to war, that is what makes it OK

Originally Posted by AKR

simply saying it's ok does not make it ok. what seems like a better idea: make a baby before going off to do something really dangerous, or wait, and make a baby when you come home from that situation? wtf is the piont of making a baby before you go off to do something you quite possibly won't return from? some of these people are going to some of the most dangerous places in the world. you can throw all the numbers you want at me, but the fact is, some of these people are going through the f*cking "triangle" every day, and their risks of dying are huge. it's just plain stupid.

You are avoiding the facts stated and have refused to address them, I will continue to bring them up

[AKR]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

blah not what I said

Thats not the question nor what you posted about, stop avoiding the subject.

i MADE the subject. stop avoiding your justification of the act.

Really any back up for your statements? Say that it is bad for a father to be away for say the first six months of a childs life

why the first six months? not all children created during war time will be in this age range when their father is deployed. not only that, but some people are there for longer than a range of 6 months, so this could be a wide age range. if i feel up to it later, i'll find some studies, but it seems quite silly to have to show studies that prove it's detrimental for a child to not have a parent around for an extended period of time. it's pretty sad that you don't believe it has a negative effect. not only this, but the very fact that a father is going off to war will quite possibly be detrimental to the child once the father has returned. war can f*ck people up. not only is there a risk of death, becoming handicapped, there is a risk of having a father who comes back an angry, depressed, abusive man. i wrote a paper on this in college. i can dig it up if you're so f*cking pig headed that you don't believe me. hell, i have sources from military sites.

As I have shown going to the war DOES NOT EQUAL GETTING KILLED. I know you will continue to post this arguement again and again so I will continue to repeat myself.

What about it? Wait is this just another attempt to aviod the topic, oh I see it is

You're right the military won't take care of them...the VA does.

haha, joke of the year. the military doesn't give a f*ck about vets.

Once again because you avoided it the first time

That means each person has a 0.007688 chance of not coming back, you consider this a strong chance?

these stats don't mean ****, because each person's chance is different. your use of stats is either out of stupidity or deceitfulness. you're telling me, that a man who's going to be driving in a hummer, through the triangle has the same risk of someone staying on base, doing communications? that's absurd.



once again, YOU are avoiding the subject. why is this ok and why should this person not wait until he returns from such a mission?

[AKR]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

It is natural to do when going to war, that is what makes it OK

hahaha, you're really going to try the "it's natural, so it's ok" bull**** on me? i doubt you'll go along when i apply this to all things natural. violence is natural. would it be ok for me to kill your family? it's completely natural. how about homosexuality? completely natural. how about sex with random people? completely natural. shall we go on, or are you going to give up this sad excuse for a defense?

You are avoiding the facts stated and have refused to address them, I will continue to bring them up

that is not a fact: it's a deceitful misuse of numbers.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

Really any back up for your statements? Say that it is bad for a father to be away for say the first six months of a childs life

An infant has crucial bonding periods and does best when parents allow the baby to attach as young as possible - consistently throughout the first 18 months of their life, as that is one of the most important developmental phases for a human.

You're right the military won't take care of them...the VA does.

I work with the children of two vets. One is disabled and is on the edge of being homeless. The other has passed away due to cancer brought on by his exposure to agent orange and his family is in a similar situation.

Originally Posted by majortrepak

It is natural to do when going to war, that is what makes it OK

Anything "natural" is okay then? Rape and murder come naturally to some, you know.

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by AKR

i MADE the subject. stop avoiding your justification of the act.

I directly stated why I thought it was justified, can you read?

Originally Posted by AKR

why the first six months? not all children created during war time

Why? Because the topic is about "lady on their who met with her husband for the specific purpose of making a baby before he was deployed to iraq". That statement implies the deployment is in the near future.

Originally Posted by AKR

will be in this age range when their father is deployed. not only that, but some people are there for longer than a range of 6 months, so this could be a wide age range.

No not a very wide range, Marine deployments on average are 6 months army 12.

Originally Posted by AKR

detrimental for a child to not have a parent around for an extended period of time.

We are talking about 6 month olds, not all children of all ages

Originally Posted by AKR

war can f*ck people up. not only is there a risk of death, becoming handicapped, there is a risk of having a father who comes back an angry, depressed, abusive man. i wrote a paper on this in college. i can dig it up if you're so f*cking pig headed that you don't believe me. hell, i have sources from military sites.

This all has nothing to do with your orginal post, all you are doing is attemping to muddy the waters to take away from your orginal post.

This is what we are discussing

"but to purposefully make a baby who faces a strong chance of never seeing his father? plain f*cked up."

I won't let you clutter the arguement

Originally Posted by AKR

haha, joke of the year. the military doesn't give a f*ck about vets.

Like I said the VA which is not part of the military, takes care of veterns.

Originally Posted by AKR

these stats don't mean ****, because each person's chance is different. your use of stats is either out of stupidity or deceitfulness. you're telling me, that a man who's going to be driving in a hummer, through the triangle has the same risk of someone staying on base, doing communications? that's absurd.

averages are averages and that is what we are discussing. We are not talking about specifics, if you want clarifaction read your first post again.

Originally Posted by AKR

once again, YOU are avoiding the subject. why is this ok and why should this person not wait until he returns from such a mission?

I have already stated this

"It is natural to do when going to war, that is what makes it OK"

[majortrepak]

[QUOTE=sheduma;46414131]An infant has crucial bonding periods and does best when parents allow the baby to attach as young as possible - consistently throughout the first 18 months of their life, as that is one of the most important developmental phases for a human.
[/QUOTE[
How about the first 6 months and of course evidence of your statement

Originally Posted by sheduma

I work with the children of two vets. One is disabled and is on the edge of being homeless. The other has passed away due to cancer brought on by his exposure to agent orange and his family is in a similar situation.

pfft well that proves a point...not. I got great care and everyone I know has gotten the same.

Originally Posted by sheduma

Anything "natural" is okay then? Rape and murder come naturally to some, you know.

No that is not what I said or implied

If you are going to try and put the same words in my mouth as ARK I will stop responding to your questions.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by AKR

i'm watching 60 minutes and it has this lady on their who met with her husband for the specific purpose of making a baby before he was deployed to iraq. this digusts and disturbs me greatly. anyone else bothered by this? i think regular child birth into this kind of a world is bad enough, but to purposefully make a baby who faces a strong chance of never seeing his father? plain f*cked up. i would like to hunt these people down and sterilize them.

i'm tired of seeing young men being deployed, while they leave pregnant women and infants behind. if you join the military, especially during a time of war, DON'T MAKE BABIES.

Wow. What a trainwreck. Seriously, this is the worst, poorly thought out thread that you have ever made. If I were you, I would profess a brief moment of insanity, delete the whole thing, and never speak of it again.

There are so many logical fallacies with this that its jaw-dropping. What are you going to do, forbid people to have children? Perhaps they shouldn't even be married before they go off to war.


Let us broaden the spectrum to include police officers and fire fighters, plus, perhaps any other jobs that you may not agree with.


I know you are against the war and the military, but wow, this thread is a low point for you.

[HEAVYMETALMATT]

Originally Posted by AKR

i'm watching 60 minutes and it has this lady on their who met with her husband for the specific purpose of making a baby before he was deployed to iraq. this digusts and disturbs me greatly. anyone else bothered by this? i think regular child birth into this kind of a world is bad enough, but to purposefully make a baby who faces a strong chance of never seeing his father? plain f*cked up. i would like to hunt these people down and sterilize them.

i'm tired of seeing young men being deployed, while they leave pregnant women and infants behind. if you join the military, especially during a time of war, DON'T MAKE BABIES.

wait til you grow enough balls to risk your life. then when that chance that you might dies arises, then talk ****. its mans ultimate goal to procreate. thats why we are here. live, reproduce, die. so, if you might die, you know you gonna want to reproduce first. also, most wifes want to have kids with the man they love. if he dies, she lost that chance. theyd have nothing. a man needs a legacy.

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

Lets take a low number say 500,000 have cycled in and out of both Wars.

OEF 390 KIA
http://www.icasualties.org/oef/
OIF 3454 KIA
http://icasualties.org/oif/

That means each person has a 0.007688 chance of not coming back, you consider this a strong chance?

The right # for those who have cycled in and out is 1.4 m


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

So the odds on average of getting KIA is 0.0027457142857142857142857142857143

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

The right # for those who have cycled in and out is 1.4 m


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

So the odds on average of getting KIA is 0.0027457142857142857142857142857143

I'll be back with the stats on car deaths

Might as well compare it to police officers, construction workers, firefighters...etc.....etc.


What is sad is that the thread starter really doesn't have any sort of logical argument, he just plain flat out dislikes the military. Of course, it would be easier to come out and state that, rather than beating around the bush and hiding behind a logical fallacy.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

We are talking about 6 month olds, not all children of all ages

But people are usually in the military for longer than just the first 6 months of their child's life. If they make a baby before going off to war, they may be going off to ANOTHER war years down the road, leaving that child again.

Like I said the VA which is not part of the military, takes care of veterns.

No, it doesn't. Read my post.

The VA told one of my clients' families that her father died from his earlier exposure to agent orange. They stated they would see how much money she was entitled to. They looked it up, then suddenly changed their story to "oh, it was other things that caused his cancer, not agent orange, we can only give you this much money."

averages are averages and that is what we are discussing. We are not talking about specifics, if you want clarifaction read your first post again.

If there is one thing a stats class teaches, it is this - "you can make numbers say anything, so they mean nothing."

[majortrepak]

So once again ARK is do you consider this a strong chance

0.0027457142857142857142857142857143

[LOVINGTHEEIRON]

Why cant we just let other people make the decision whether our not they want to have children.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by sheduma

But people are usually in the military for longer than just the first 6 months of their child's life. If they make a baby before going off to war, they may be going off to ANOTHER war years down the road, leaving that child again.

Blah, I know plenty of military brats that grew up with their parents away for quite some time. They never had any adjustment issues, and on average, tend to be far more well-travelled and global-centric than the typical average everyday person. Your argument holds no water, especially considering the extreme rate of single parents in the US overall.

No, it doesn't. Read my post.

The VA told one of my clients' families that her father died from his earlier exposure to agent orange. They stated they would see how much money she was entitled to. They looked it up, then suddenly changed their story to "oh, it was other things that caused his cancer, not agent orange, we can only give you this much money."

Um, while in the military, you are covered by SGLI, as you get out of the military, you have the option of continuing that same sort of life insurance coverage under a very affordable and reasonable plan.

If there is one thing a stats class teaches, it is this - "you can make numbers say anything, so they mean nothing."

???????? None of what you said somehow comes closing to addressing the concept that members of the military should not be having children, which ultimately is the heart of this thread when you get down to the nitty-gritty.

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by sheduma

But people are usually in the military for longer than just the first 6 months of their child's life.

We aren't talking about how long the someone is in the military for

Originally Posted by sheduma

If they make a baby before going off to war, they may be going off to ANOTHER war years down the road, leaving that child again.

Again that is not the case we are discussing, if you need to remember what case we are discussing read the OP

Originally Posted by sheduma

No, it doesn't. Read my post.

The VA told one of my clients' families that her father died from his earlier exposure to agent orange. They stated they would see how much money she was entitled to. They looked it up, then suddenly changed their story to "oh, it was other things that caused his cancer, not agent orange, we can only give you this much money."

We aren't talking about other wars so thanks for trying to muddy the waters but no go

Originally Posted by sheduma

If there is one thing a stats class teaches, it is this - "you can make numbers say anything, so they mean nothing."

Well that is quite a meaningfull post, do you have anything relevent to the discussion?

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by LOVINGTHEEIRON

Why cant we just let other people make the decision whether our not they want to have children.

Well ARK and others have a God complex and what control over others lives.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

I directly stated why I thought it was justified, can you read?

you didn't exactly explain yourself.

Why? Because the topic is about "lady on their who met with her husband for the specific purpose of making a baby before he was deployed to iraq". That statement implies the deployment is in the near future.

no, actually, if you reread, you should see that she was just an example. i clearly stated that i'm bothered by men leaving pregnant women and infants behind.

No not a very wide range, Marine deployments on average are 6 months army 12.

on average? over how many years are you claiming this average? that's still at least 6 months to a year, and right now, people are getting longer deployments.

We are talking about 6 month olds, not all children of all ages

actually, we're not, since "infant" is not a child 6 months or younger.

This all has nothing to do with your orginal post, all you are doing is attemping to muddy the waters to take away from your orginal post.



"but to purposefully make a baby who faces a strong chance of never seeing his father? plain f*cked up."

I won't let you clutter the arguement

This is an expansion on the original point. if you have a problem with that, you can leave, but this is my thread, and so i think i get to define what this thread is about. if you do not find these other risks relevant and just as serious as death, then you have issues. are you afraid they strengthen my position, and thus, make your justification more difficult? i'm sorry.

Like I said the VA which is not part of the military, takes care of veterns.

so you're telling me that there's no problem with how vets are treated? where is this rock you're living under. how do you get internet access?

averages are averages and that is what we are discussing. We are not talking about specifics, if you want clarifaction read your first post again.

i know what my first post said, but unfortunately, you don't.

I have already stated this

"It is natural to do when going to war, that is what makes it OK"

but you have not told us why "natural = ok." it is still not a justification. it's like me saying, "my shoes are blue, so i can rape your dog." it's nonsensical.

you still haven't addressed where this "it's natural" type of answer leads us. are you ok with the natural things i mentioned?

[LOVINGTHEEIRON]

Guys whether its homosexuals,religions,people having babies then going to war,etc we have no right to judge this poeple for what they do.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

How about the first 6 months and of course evidence of your statement

Hint: the first six months fall within the first 18 months.

Look around for psych theories if you actually care, I may post a link(s) to them if I get the chance.

pfft well that proves a point...not. I got great care and everyone I know has gotten the same.

Everyone I know hasn't.

No that is not what I said or implied

If you are going to try and put the same words in my mouth as ARK I will stop responding to your questions.

That's some threat you have there.

BTW, "It is natural to do when going to war, that is what makes it OK"

If you meant more than "being natural makes it okay," you should have said something more.

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

What are you going to do, forbid people to have children?

Ideally

Perhaps they shouldn't even be married before they go off to war.

A spouse knows what they are getting into, a child has no say/choice or understanding.

Originally Posted by HEAVYMETALMATT

its mans ultimate goal to procreate. thats why we are here. live, reproduce, die. so, if you might die, you know you gonna want to reproduce first. also, most wifes want to have kids with the man they love. if he dies, she lost that chance. theyd have nothing. a man needs a legacy.

It is some people's goal to kill everyone. You'll have to think of a better justification than that. Yeah, he might die, so if he loved his future kids he wouldn't put them through his death or not having him around ever. And boo hoo to those poor wives for not getting to pop out babies with the man they love. Think of the children, not selfish desires.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by AKR

so you're telling me that there's no problem with how vets are treated? where is this rock you're living under. how do you get internet access?

With all this intimate knowledge of veterans problems, I must ask you....what branch did you serve in? Perhaps we might have met some of the same people???? I mean, you're trying to pass on hearsay information, 3rd person information, to people who have first-person experience, do you realize how stupid that is?

That is like having spent your whole life in New Zealand and telling folks from Holland just how things are in their country based on what you read in a book. I know the VA system is screwy, I know it has problems, but it still tends to do a pretty good job with what it is given, especially with the most severe of cases.

[LOVINGTHEEIRON]

Guys they dont have to jusity anything to any of us. Its their right and they can do what they want.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

We aren't talking about other wars so thanks for trying to muddy the waters but no go

huh, we're not talking about other wars? i'm sorry, but i made the thread. i'm talking about ALL wars. you told me that "on average" people aren't deployed for more than 6-12 months. did you get that information from just one war? if we're just talking about one war, you can't use that average.

either way, her example shows you the care vets recieve. you think people from THIS war are getting the best treatment?


i'm outta here for now. gotta concentrate on other ****.