Discussion in 'Serious' started by Rotcrack, 2 Jun 2010.
What is your opinion on this?
Good idea, if a little scary for the soldiers.
Not mandatory but publicised so they know about it, discount for people with MOD cards - either from taxpayers money or perhaps the company used itself could give the discount.
Hell, if I was in a soldiers situation I would even see if they could do testicular preservation and have one of my testicles removed and preserved for reiplantation at a later date. But given limited choices, hell yes I would have some of my sailors frozen.
Yes they should freeze there sperm but no they shouldn't get a discount. The army is a job that every single soldier voluntarily enlisted to, they shouldn't get perks that other workers don't get.
I am not wishing to start a flame war, it is just my opinion.
I started the thread for others opinion. But don't you think that the men away from home fighting for our country should get some perks? Saying they should get sperm frozen but not get given a discount is like; getting a job but having to pay for a very expensive uniform.
I'd be in favour of them having it for a discounted rate or possibly even free, but only if it's when they are going into a warzone. Also if they come back from said warzone without damage, the sperm can be disposed of in the appropriate way, reducing storage costs.
These people will be fighting for their respective country so should they lose their nads in the field of combat, it is the least that can be done to allow them to raise a family at a later date.
Without people enlisting in the armies, conscription would come in quicker in a war situation. These people are literally putting their nads on the line so you don't have to.
I await flaming from the pit of Serious Discussion
Yesh. 6 month tour of duty. During deployment training freeze sperm. During debriefing/cool down thaw the sperm and dispose of. Half the price of a normal year... discounted further. How would you dispose of them? Burn the buggers?
What about the men who are in this country who do jobs to protect and better us? And why the hell should they get it for free? Comparing it to a uniform is bs, once again I will reiterate, they took the job on there own free will, they get a regular wage. They should take there own precautions if they run the risk of having there balls splatted. I have taken on several jobs where my own safety is at risk, but this was my choice and I took steps to ensure that my family would not suffer financially if the worst happened. Should my employers be made to pay for this? Yes, thats what wages are for. Soldiers are just employees, dont forget that.
How about the army just gets a unit consisting of nothing but essex girls to dispose of it in a manner befitting an essex girl
I think that's a flawed analogy. Presumably a soldier chooses to enlist, and he does so knowing full well what fate he may meet on the battlefield. If he truly wishes to procreate, then he needs to do so before he sets off, or choose a career with less probability of death.
Certain jobs might have requirements - one of which might be an expensive uniform. The ability to procreate is not a job requirement; it is a personal life decision that must be weighed against the potential dangers of a given career.
Yes... but it is something that you have a RIGHT to. You should always have the right to have children and no job should take it away from you. A previous thread I think here was about chemically castrating sex offenders, this has been adopted in some countries but not in the UK. It is taking away a right.
Nobody has the right to have children. It is a god given gift. If soldiers feel they might want to have kids in the future then by all means freeze there sperm, but they should be the ones that pay for it.
I'm not sure who exactly you're talking about, but I'm going to assume it's Policemen, Fire Brigade etc?
If so then I think the statistics need to be looked at. There is no point offering this service to the entire police force if the statistics say that permanent damage to genitalia during the line of duty is very rare.
That type of one-rule-for-all thinking just leads to a massive waste of tax-payers money.
IIRC the current number of British forces being injured by IED's is around 5 times higher the amount of deaths. If a significant number of those are also losing the ability to have children, then offering a back-up plan, either subsidised or free, is IMO a great idea.
You emphasize soldiers choosing this line of work out of their own free will, but I don't see what relevance that has. We need the armed forces and just because we don't have conscription, that doesn't mean we should resign from offering them some amount of assurances.
NuTech you are dodging my point, what makes a soldier so special? Why should they get it for a reduced rate or even free? They are the ones putting there own nuts on the line so they should be made to pay for it themselves, not put more expense on the taxpayer.
I'm pretty sure I addressed that exact point.
It's not about a soldier being 'special', it's about providing a solution to a problem that directly effects them and only them.
If a scientist tomorrow discovered that frequently being around smoke made you impotent, then I'd be saying the same thing for the Fire Brigade.
Yes but again, they picked the job they are in so if that job leads or can lead to them being infertile then they are the ones that should pay for it.
I suspect the decision to not chemically castrate sex offenders has less to do with the right to procreate, and more to do with the fact that such practices are unfitting of a civilized people and have neither psychological nor medical basis.
You may argue that a soldier has the right to procreate. He also has a right to choose a different career if procreation is that important to him.
I wonder, though: If we're going to give soldiers the option to freeze and store sperm at tax payer's expense because we feel they have a right to maintain the ability to procreate, what option will we give women?
EDIT: I also think there's a subtle irony in the discussion of maintaining a soldier's ability to create life while he is out taking someone else's.
So the large number of people that make up soldiers are in the late teens, early 20's. Not really the age for everyone to have children. So those who want children, but don't want them yet choose not to join the armed forces.
So thats a large number of people leaving the army. Makes you feel safe now really isn't it. They're out their on a small pay, and you wouldn't stump up the cash to freeze a few sperm to the people who theoretically defend the country?
Separate names with a comma.