>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems a little extreme to me. These soldiers face the possibility of death every day. The brass is going to crack down on them for seeking some comfort?
>>>>
>>>>Difference between seeking comfort and knocking up a fellow soldier who would then be unable to continue her mission. Not extreme at all, having a few less soldiers to accomplish the job is extreme.
>>>
>>>Folks may be amazed, but I agree with you. We are speaking of a combat situation in a combat-zone, not peacetime assignment or even state-side assignment during war time. The entire point here is that losing a soldier (male or female) while in a combat-environment is extremely dangerous for everyone else in the unit.
>>
>>You two were soldiers and I was not, so I will concede the point. It still seems (to an amateur) to be ignoring human nature. But I already conceded, so no need for me to go on arguing ;-)
>
>It's also human nature to lean toward instant gratification. That is a no-no in most societies, so the military's insistence at following the rules is not surprising.

What rules, though? If this were in the military code of conduct manual I don't think this announcement would be news. One of the things that seems odd is that, at least as I understand it, one general has announced a new policy which applies to the soldiers under his command and not to the rest of the armed forces. That isn't the way changes in military policy should happen. They should come from the level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Which it occurs to me is kind of a lewd sounding phrase considering the subject matter, LOL).

I think "no-no" is going a bit far. Instant gratification may not be the most admirable desire, but I doubt many of us consider it an abomination. It's human nature -- which brings me back to the starting point.

PS -- Wasn't there a Navy ship during the first Gulf War that was nicknamed the Love Boat for the number of pregnancies that occurred on board?