So money should be spent on the off chance that they might want children in the future? Fair enough if the soldier pays for it themselves, but again why should the tax payer pick up this tab? We already pay for everything else. Also there pay isn't that small, it is above the minimum wage. A recruit pockets £200 a week AFTER taxes.
Freezing eggs is a more intrusive procedure and can cost three times as much. Average age for soldiers is 21-22, and the freezing process is often for the girlfriend/wife at home. If they had plans for children then she can go ahead with it even though he is not around.
Because soldiers are doing a service to our country? You honestly think £200 a week is good money for a week? I earn about that working in a coffee shop. A 4 week month is £800 so around 10k a year.
I think it's a good idea. I guess the only other thing is to think about how many other jobs regularly put you in danger of being injured so that you wouldn't be able to have kids. I don't think it's that unreasonable for them to get a discount on the service as part of their benefits of their job.
Ok you make £200 a week also, but you have to pay for your meals, you have to pay for your accommodation and you have to pay for your utility bills. The £200 quoted for a soldier is AFTER these things have been paid for. Anyway this topic was started to get peoples opinions on this. I have given mine and no matter what anyone says I will not change my mind. If people want to throw taxpayers money at the army then surely they should give them adequate equipment rather than waste money on freezing sperm.
Sorry dude, went down the gym. Dispose of it the usual way medical waste gets disposed of, which I think is incineration (but don't quote me on that).
I'm somewhat surprised it isn't presented as an idea already to soldiers of various militaries. Perhaps not for everyone, but at least a heads up before people are shipped over-seas. My own opinion, soldiers are very special because they're willing to enlist themselves to go out and defend their country and its citizens. They may not be conscripted, but if no one ever enlisted you can bet your ass there'd be a draft or some sort of mandatory service, no matter what country you're in. With regards to pay, this is all assuming our militaries treat soldiers similarly, housing and food services are often quite poor compared to a person with a normal job. Two to four guys sharing a tiny apartment which is often just one bedroom per soldier and a shared bathroom in between with a shared living space/kitchen room connecting them. Whatever crappy internet they feel like giving you, with whatever restrictions they feel like placing on it. Who knows if you'll even be provided with a parking spot, it's pretty common practice to design soldier/sailor housing without enough parking spots to cover everyone since the designers are just betting on the chance that some people won't own a vehicle. Oh, and now that you've gotten comfortable you're going to be going and moving off somewhere else for the next 6 months. Hope you didn't make friends, hope you didn't start a relationship. Extra surprise, that somewhere is Iraq and now you'll be sleeping on a cot in a tent packed with everyone that can fit. Go and defend your country! Even though there are good chances that you'll simply be horribly maimed by an IED or guerilla attack before you even get to do anything you're trained to do. Oh well, bad luck. I sure hope losing your left leg and both of your testies doesn't impact your life, because now it's time for you to go and find something else to do since you're no good as a soldier. Here's a benefits check, good luck! Go start your thankless life all over again!
ok by that reasoning because a fireman has more chance of suffering smoke inhalation than my milkman he should have to buy his own breathing apparatus. After all he choose a job where he would be going into smoked filled houses.
Again, the analogy is a bit flawed. A breathing apparatus is part of a firefighter's standard kit, and I would argue that it's a pretty vital piece of equipment to properly - and safely - perform the job. It would be akin to a soldier's body armor. Frozen sperm is not required for any job, the sperm bank employees notwithstanding. It is a personal choice.
What makes them so special is the fact that they were the ones who had the courage to join up in the first place. They are the ones who risk their lives not just the odd time, but every time they go on active service. They are the ones who face long seperations from their families. They are the ones that do what they are told, when they are told, and do so without complaining. Then we have police officers claiming hundreds of thousands of tax payers money because they got a clip off a feisty crook or they suffered some trivial (in the grand scheme of things, and nothing to what these soldiers are dealing with daily) trauma. We also have firemen and the police who strike over pay rates, something the soldiers cannot do. Now I would ask you, who would be most deserving? The fact of the matter is that most British soldiers are being hurt and killed by IED's because our government placed massive cuts on the army's budget, and as a result our soldiers are not equipped properly for the threat of IED's. They are still being forced to go out in "snatch " Land Rovers, which IED's cut through like a hot knife through butter. The first things to go are their limbs, and in the case of lower limb loss, the genetalia are frequently partially or fully lost too. My dad was killed on active service in 1983, and my Mum got a pittance of a war widows pension to bring us all up. Soldiers don't get many perks, and their surviving families don't either. What is so wrong in maybe giving a widow of a soldier, or a surviving injured soldier the opportunity of having a child, and doing so at the tax payers cost. I would gladly pay the extra tax, and would consider it an honour to do so.
I don't live in the UK but I am a soldier I have faithfully servered my country for the last 16 years and have made TWO one year combat tours to Iraq. I have driven in convoys up and down the roads and seen (and luckly missed) IED's. I have had friends that have been shot at, blown up and mortared on a daily basis. Would any of you against giving a soldier (referring to anyone in the armed forces) a chance to have a family later in life like to go in their place? I don't think its a lot to ask from the tax payer. I don't make a lot of money being in the military, after I pay my bills i think i have enough money left over to buy food for my family and put a little in savings. Yes I chose this profession but if i didn't and others like me didn't ( Think of the past wars we have had WWI and WWII) what type of freedoms would we have? I think it's a small thing to ask for maybe the cost of someones life or limbs!
Exactly, soldiers are being killed and are losing the ability to read, write and walk because of underfunding yet you want more money spent on storing sperm on the (very small chance) that they lose there balls. I think if you gave a soldier a choice between his life or balls im sure life would be the vote for all of them. It would cost millions and millions to do what you guys suggest, every soldier would have to get it done (and for those would disagree with this, how would you decide who gets it done) and then storage space for all those little jars, and millions more to pay for the upkeep of them. Sorry to hear about your dad, however you are going way off topic now. Also to everyone else who is for the taxpayer picking up the tab for this, can anyone link me to an article about a soldier that has lost nads due to being in active service. I cant find any and although I don't doubt it has happened I would be prepared to bet that the numbers are far less than lives lost. Now again what is more important? the lives of the soldiers, or the chance that they might want kids in the future?
Not much but most I could find in a couple of Google searches. Its not really publicized and the shock wave can cause just as much damage as actual contact with the IED or grenade. SO its a lot more common to have reduced sperm count after being caught in an explosion. The scheme is not mandatory! In this hypothesis it is voluntary. ( I like that word.... hypothesis.) The lives of soldiers are also important, developing new vehicular technology would prevent these incidents and therefore the cost of freezing sperm could be raised as the risk is lower and less soldiers will be going for the option.
That article doesn't say he is infertile. It says he could be. It is an easy and quick test to find out if you are sterile (I know, I have done it) so the fact that it hasn't been confirmed leads me to believe that a) He is not sterile b) He doesn't care enough to get it checked
Lets not argue... I said its the best I could find. Ill continue looking. EDIT: http://www.news.com.au/national/dig...ozen-sperm-fight/story-e6frfkvr-1225833652526 I would like to reiterate my point, its not just about soldiers loss of sexual function but about their life. If they perish while away on tour the partner could still have a child by them.
I disagree with that. You do not have the right to have children unless you can bring them up in a stable environment and provide for them yourself. As a taxpayer i would rather pay to freeze a soldiers ***** then pay to raise the children of those who do not contribute to society. Soldiers volunteer to join the army and are aware of the risks (as much as any of us actually know what it will be like) but as a society we have a duty of care over them, one which we are currently failing in. Our armed forces are an expensive and vital asset and we should be doing the best for them by providing them decent standards of accommodation in barracks, the correct and decent equipment and the best physical and mental health care we can provide. Injured soldiers should be kept within the armed forces where ever possible and given other jobs so they feel wanted and are surrounded by people who understand what they have been through. It would also let those on active service know that they will not be abandoned if something terrible happens to them.
I agree with the possibility of the armed services being able to freeze their sperm ,on the taxpayer, whilst on active service in a warzone. Having served myself and being brought up in a military background I can safely say that yes whilst a soldier may well take £200 a week after taxes and deductions that is a pittance for what they do. I currently take more sat on my arse in an office. M7ck only single soldiers live in barracks and get 3 meals a day, married ones live in married quarters, of which about 50% would be classified as unfit for habitation by your local council, feed themselves and have to pay rent etc, just like everyone else. When away on active service they still pay for those married quarters whilst living in some sh#tpit provided by the military, have you seen the state of the quarters in Afghanistan?, the Americans laugh at what our soldiers live in, their set up is positively palatial by comparison, they also get paid a damn sight more and their military is respected at home for its service, not spat at and insulted should they dare to wear uniform in public.
what makes a soldier so special is they go out there fighting for your right to sit here and berate them. Yes if they are going into a warzone to make sure you have the "off chance" to have a child and to make sure that child grows up in a safe world without the worry of having planes crash into buildings or public transport randomly blown up, then hell yeah they should get some tax payers money to ensure their lineage and their right to have a family. In fact i would happily give all my taxes to the army that i give to those low-life welfare scum that just want free housing and benefits. also £200 a week ? you can hardly live off of that or support a family.
You have suggested that it is only a very small number that become infertitile, where are YOUR statistics? No I am not going off topic at all, I was qualifying my statement, I know exactly how ex servicemen and their families are treated. And as I said, they don't get many perks at all, and I would consider it a honour if I had to pay a little extra tax to put this suggestion into practice. Even if the figure was just as low as 20 soldiers, we should still be giving them the security of knowing they had the option of having kids in the future, if this is what they want. And Rotcrack made a perfectly valid point, widows of soldiers should also be have the opportunity if they want.
