If the soldiers would be defending my country please go ahead, freeze their sperm and protect their offspring. However the soldiers out in Afghanistan aren't exactly defending my country, or even it's interests. They should just get their respective nuts home.
You're not really respecting the soldiers here - they did not choose to go to war. They joined the armed forces but mostly not to participate in the war. I doubt anyone but the psychos who you do get want to stay, it was our governments choice not theirs.
And who is berating them? I am going by the fact that I have never read a single piece of literature saying that a soldier lost his ability to procreate due to an IED. Now again im sure that it has happened but the fact that you will struggle to find an article about one surely means the numbers are small. Now it seems a lot of members are having a go at me for my opinions, I am not against the British Army and I have not said anything to belittle them at all. I voiced that I didn't think that the taxpayer should be lumbered with the bill for them getting sperm frozen. There are close on to 300000 on the Army's books (including reserves) and if each of these, assuming they were all men got sperm frozen it would cost the taxpayer something in the region of £75 million. How many armoured land rovers would that buy the army and surely they would be more suitable to preserve our servicemen. I am happy to pay for the armed forces but I would not be happy wasting money on this idea.
By that logic, I could also argue that the numbers are large, but go unreported because of the private and sensitive nature. In case you haven't noticed, there are very few official statistics made publicly available on the nature and frequency of IED injuries. The MoD are happy with publishing the number of fatalities, as the current public opinion is favourable, however if we were to read about the massive number of injuries every day, and the long term costs and implications, then this favour would soon wane. Our population stands at over 55 million citizens, and the cost as you suggest would be over £75 million. Would I be willing to pay an extra of around £1.50 for the financial year to implement this scheme.....hell yes I would. I would also donate whatever I could, and I know that I would not be alone in doing so. Are you saying that you would begrudge this amount? EDIT: Also just a quick point, Land Rovers are wholly inappropriate for the Afghanistan theatre, and can only be lightly armoured. The vehicles in use were designed as rapid response vehicles to the threats encountered in Northern Ireland - hence the term *snatch*.
Think about how much is payed out by the taxpayer because of benefit fraudsters or official mistakes. 2006 - £2.5 billion. More was lost due to official mistakes then due to benefit fraudsters. We are talking about a relatively small amount of money here, if we eliminate all official mistakes then we would have more than enough to pay for sperm preservation. SOURCE
So the public are happy to hear about deaths but not injuries? That really doesn't make any sense. And your source for this is what? Yes I would begrudge it, if it was spent on this. Regardless of how little it might be per head I still think if there was £75 million to be spent on the army then there are far better ways than to freeze some soldiers love juice just in case they MIGHT want to have kids in the future. When I asked how many armoured land rovers £75 million would buy that was an example as you are the one that said the 'Snatch' vehicles were useless.
The press! How many reports of soldiers being just injured in IED attacks have you read or heard? Compare that with the number of reports that you hear or read about fatalities, point proven I think. Show me more than a handful of news reports where there were no fatalities, only serious injuries. It also does make sense, because at the moment the civilian population is uniting in the grief of those who have given their lives. The issue of IED related injuries is largely being ignored by the media, and to some extent the public too, simply because it doesn't sell stories as well as those concerning fatalities and it's easier to grieve for losing a person rather than that persons individual loss. The problem of injuries is also on a much larger scale than the fatalities, so obviously the MoD would be much happier with the smallest problem receiving more attention than the wider problems. Well that's a personal choice you have made, I would opt for sperm freezing for our troops, if they wished to use this facility. It doesn't matter what I or you think at the end of the day, as it isn't going to change anything. However, if there was ever a serious move to consider this by our government, I would be behind it 200%.
That doesn't make sense mate. Surely the lack of reports backs up my opinion that it is a very small minority. Or are you saying there is a cover up and all the media is involved? Now again I will reiterate, I am 100% behind the British Armed forces, they do there best to keep us safe. Now the whole point of the army is to protect this country and I don't think that freezing sperm qualifies therefore I don't see why the country should pay for it.
How can you join the armed forces with no expectation that you might face real warfare? This doesn't make sense. If you do not want to go to war, why the heck would you join the armed forces? That's like saying, "Why should police expect to encounter criminals?" They are soldiers. What do soldiers do? Anyway, as to the topic, without knowing the cost to the taxpayer, I can't make an informed judgement - however I think that soldiers should be allowed to freeze their sperm at a reduced rate from the average citizen because of the service they are providing for the country! I don't think they should get it for free, since that would cost a lot for something that might not even be wanted.
No it doesn't, not for a minute. If you want official stats, then here you are: Source: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F.../OperationsInAfghanistanBritishCasualties.htm Notice that the source doesn't break down the specific injuries, but it is well known that lower limb loss equates to a high percentage of the serious injuries. So out of the 1,126 wounded in action cases reported within the source, how many can you find that have been reported. You do that, and I will show you the daily reports of fatalities, where the injured soldiers are mentioned as an aside. It isn't a consipiricy, and I never suggested that. Every major conflict in modern times has seen reporters concentrating on the number of deaths rather than numbers of those injured. It sells papers, keeps us watching the news and is a lot easier for us to sympathise with as a nation. We all lose people at some stage in our lives, but how many do we meet who have suffered serious, life changing, non fatal injuries? It also stands to reason that if injuries were given more attention by the media, and the implications of these injuries were more widely reported, then there would be people who would be beginning to see the war in a different light. It's bloody common sense.
1126 wounded, how many of these lost there balls? I know there is no certain answer but take an educated guess and im sure you will agree that the number will be a very small percentage. How many of the 1126 injuries could have been avoided if the soldiers had better equipment? EDIT - We are going way off topic now, the topic is about freezing soldiers sperm at taxpayers expense. I don't agree with it and you do.
You seem to misunderstand me here. I'm not suggesting that money should be diverted from our defence budget to fund this, I am suggesting that extra revenue should be created to fund it. I would also be more than willing to make other financial sacrifices for the sake of our troops, if it was to be used in offering better protection for them. If our government is able and willing to send them into theatres of war, then they damned well better make sure they are equipped. They have not. You are trying to muddy the waters with two specific and individual topics here. As I said before, even if the number was as little as 20 soldiers (which I seriously doubt), I would still fully support any scheme in place. You are also ignoring the fact that there could be many widows of late soldiers, who were killed in action, that may want the opportunity to have children by their late partner. It isn't just about the injured soldiers, something you are concentrating on.
I think we have crossed wires here and a misunderstanding on both sides. If the opportunity to raise money for the armed forces is there then surely there are far better ways to spend it than freezing sperm. Our priority should be to protect our troops lives not there ability to father children. If there was a fund set up for soldiers that could guarantee all money donated would go to better armour, weapons, vehicles, protection for our troops then I would be the first in line to put money in. I don't think freezing and storing sperm is a good way to spend our money.
As mentioned earlier, that's a personal and ethical question that we will have to agree to disagree on. Where I will challenge you though, is the fact that you are trying to dismiss the impact and frequency of injuries to our troops, by claiming that it isn't a big problem.
