1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sperm Freezing for Soldiers

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Rotcrack, 2 Jun 2010.

  1. Rotcrack

    Rotcrack Food Maestro.

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    928
    Likes Received:
    78
    This was an interesting and conflicting at some points debate.
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2010
  2. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    Not at all, I may push my point forcefully, but I respect your opinion and don't hold grudges.:thumb:
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Some good points have been made here, and rather than to chip into each one of them I'll try and summarise my thoughts here.

    As Supermonkey says, there are many jobs that involve some threat to life and/or procreative ability. Police, fire service, paramedics (more and more), and arguably people working with toxic and radioactive materials. Shouldn't they all get a discount on sperm/ovary freezing?

    On the other hand, people who put a high value on the ability to procreate and raise their children --which I strongly argue go hand-in-hand-- should perhaps not pursue a career that puts both at significant risk. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't leave a widow and child behind on a war pension. Your first obligation is always to your spouse and children.

    My problem with all this is sentimentality. Stupid, sugary sentimentality. We all disagree with war, but we glorify soldiers. We don't support the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, but we support our troops. We say that soldiers fight for Freedom and Democracy, and are fighting a War on Terror™, but they inexplicably seem to find themselves dying on a patch of desert which happens to have lots of natural resources underneath it. Kind of mixed messages here. Meanwhile well-meaning, courageous young men and women sign up with the intention of defending their country only to be cynically exploited for and sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and business interest.

    Think of the countries that have the biggest armies: China, North Korea, Russia, Iran... Wot? No glorious brave soldiers fighting for freedom there? They'd argue that they are. You think that the Taliban are not fighting for what they believe in? Of course they are. And they all have crowds putting flowers in the barrels of their guns as they parade down the street (except perhaps the Taliban, who don't do flowers), and they all have young people eager to sign up for country, cause and glory.

    Screw it. At the risk of using a Star Trek quote: War is a dirty business. A very dirty business. Let's not glam it up: it involves the indiscriminate killing of innocents and the pointless sacrifice of brave people. It is not heroic, it is horrific. You don't fight an abstract noun. You fight people. You try to shoot them to pieces while they try to shoot you to pieces. Innocents get caught in the crossfire. It's reality. It's war. No respawns, no lives left. When you lose your nuts you lose them. And when you die your spouse gets a $35,-- medal (the material cost of a Purple Heart, fyi) and a tiny war pension.

    The sooner everyone sees war for what it is, the better. Perhaps all those courageous young men and women will be less eager to sign up, and will find a more productive career in the police, fire service or NHS, where they can really do good for a good cause and don't get senselessly wasted. Perhaps politicians will have to think harder about how they are going to convince people to fight their wars for them. Perhaps if there are fewer soldiers, we'd take better care of them by minding what wars we send them to fight in the first place.
     
    walle likes this.
  4. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    Nexxo, that was the position we were left in, and I can guarantee you that it wasn't how my dad wanted us to be. He joined the army at 15 years old (junior leader), and in the 60's, when there were very little odds of going out on active service, and certainly not on the rotation frequency that our guys over there are having to put up with. So he joined at 15, and the army was his life long before he met my mum and had me and my sister. In those days, if you came out of the army early, you got very miniscule amounts of pension, with a long wait on the dole for low paid jobs. So he wanted to see his time out in the army, and ended up paying the ultimate price for it. He also trained day in and day out with his regiment, and was responsible for his subordinates. It isn't as clear cut as saying if you have family then you shouldn't be in the armed forces.

    I strongly agree though that our nation needs to get over the hero mentality, and start to see that war is affecting thousands of our young men in ways that we would only dare to imagine. Yes there are true heros, and they should be celebrated, but war is indeed a dirty business and the true humane and financial costs of any conflict are never fully appreciated by a population that is largely unaffected, and to some extent ignorant.
     
  5. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    Not to get too offtopic, but your dad's own story makes a point that gets a little lost at times. A lot of soldiers join at young ages, I've got some friends who just recently joined right out of high school who have no current intentions of getting married or having children, but would very much enjoy having a family later on. The beauty of sperm freezing is that it seems to last a decent amount of time. A single young man can enlist, get his little buddies frozen, and then keep them (either at his own expense or the tax payer's, whatever it came down to be) just in case he is injured and sterilized during service before he has time to find a wife. Assuming he kept his sperm around still he could have children once he's done with his service and found a spouse.
     
  6. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    I think there's an issue here which hasn't yet been addressed which could do with being so. The point that soldiers volunteer to serve their country and therefore deserve no protection against losing their balls has been raised. However we live in a country where the risks presented to people who work in any profession are minimised as much as is reasonably possible. Supposedly the main reason smoking in pubs was banned was that it presented a risk to bar workers. Now if we want to argue that bar workers volunteered to work in that job therefore deserve no protection, then fair enough - but the fact is we live in a country which says bar workers must be protected. Similarly, fireworkers are provided with fire-suits, nuclear industry workers have mandatory radiation checks on a regular basis (as do radiographers). People who work in the chemical industry are legally required to have hazmat suits made available to them for situations in which they require them. Hell, government cars are required to have seatbelts in them simply because it minimises the risk of those travelling in them.

    In all of these cases, the general populace is made to sacrifice either rights or money in order that the safety of workers is minimised. I see no difference for soldiers.

    Now unfortunately we can't minimise the risk in war to the level we'd like. Soldiers will get wounded, but we can minimise the effects this has on them. We do this already, we provide them with body armour and helmets, we provide them with counselling, and post-wound rehabilitation. So why not provide them with protection against losing their testicles?

    Beyond this simple issue of consistency of government policy, there exists the issue of the military covenant. I'm pretty much only technically in the military, but all of my superior officers and many of the people I train with have volunteered to defend their country. Whether you agree with any current conflict or not, those are things that politicians get us into. If you're in the military and the government says go, you go - I and hundreds of thousands of others in the UK have taken an oath to do just that. Ultimately, it is the job of these people (and also myself) to defend this country in the event of any threat against it, and this may mean dying in order that civilians can live. In return, the government has a duty to take care of, and to minimise the risks associated with being a soldier. I would argue that taking care of soldiers, in the current climate of IED's and morter attacks in places like Afghanistan, means that the government does have a duty to try and ensure that the young guys going out there can have kids even if they do step on an IED.

    Just my 2 pence. I'm in a very obivously biased position, and if the government kept it's nose out of risk reduction in the work place then I would have to reconsider my position some, however given that the military covenant still (barely) exists, and that throughout all public and private industries the government mandates all sorts of safety, risk reduction, and insurance measures in order to minimise the risk present in those jobs, I think it's a damn good idea that soldiers are at least given the option of freezing sperm pre-deployment.

    Certainly all the guys I've spoken to (all of whom are intending to enlist post-university) are now aware and considering freezing sperm pre-deployment.

    edit: As for anyone who thinks that private soldiers get paid enough, frankly you don't have a clue. I get about what a private soldier gets, and I don't get minimum wage if I work a "full" day of 8 hours. But as a soldier, you don't work 8 hours - that's a nice day. Work can be 24 hours a day for weeks or months on end. Sleeping becomes part of work, but you sleep with a rifle next to you and wake up whenever it's required. £44 a day can be £5.50 an hour, or it can be £1.83 an hour. It's not much.
     
  7. NuTech

    NuTech Minimodder

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    96
    Don't mean to derail the thread any further, but this statement is interesting.

    The sentimentality you mention I feel stems from guilt. We live in a democracy where the government controls the military, not vice-versa. Like it or not, as a result we have to take responsibility for the perpetual wars we're now involved in. We voted that government in and when they decided to go to war, we all could of done more to stop it.

    As a result of our (in)action, we now receive bite-sized daily reminders of the true consequences of that decision.
     
  8. Noob4ever

    Noob4ever always learning

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    327
    Likes Received:
    1
    Alright heres my chance to be a big ***hole, first of, its what they signed up for, do not sign up for a military service if your not ready to die for your country, you know this can happen when you sign up, its what the military is for. The fact that most don't think to do anything beyond signing up, going to basic, getting **** work, and drinking as much as they can on leave, is not our problem. What someone should do, is start up a company specifically to address this need, but it is by no means, something that is everyone elses problem, theres such a thing as planning ahead.
    So because soldiers refuse to think and invest a little money in their own safety or future longevity, it should be on us to do it for them? It does not work that way.
    90% of the job's I've ever had, are dangerous, in the range of 0-10, 10 being, you slip up once, your screwed, 0 being totally safe, I'd say 3-4 of them fall into the 7-8 range, and 2 of them fall in the 9-10 range. But since I'm not an idiot, I always look at what I'm going to do first, and If I determined my safety would be enhanced by purchasing and using an additional piece of equipment, or safety harness etc etc, I do it. It is not on the company to provide me with more than is necessary, they give me the basics I need for my safety, just like the military does to its soldiers, but s**t happens, if soldiers dont bother planning for s**t happening, then it should not be on us to provide for their lack of foresight.

    Yeah losing your ping pongs would suck, but if you didnt take the precautions you thought necessary, or were necessary, then it is not my problem if you lose them.

    Due to the precautions I take in my work clothing, boots, gloves, eye protection, and various safety tools, harnesses etc etc, The biggest injury I've had in 7 years of doing heavy doing manufacturing and prototyping(with 4 years of hydraulics testing and new manufacture prototyping) Is straining my back and going on easy duty for a week. I've been 10 feet away from a z-95 main boom hydraulic exploding, I got covered in hydraulic fluid, had to replace my nice heavy leather jacket, and one of my shirts from shrapnel, but other than that, 2 small cuts on the forehead, and that was it. some of the guys with me were much more seriously injured. Is this my fault or in any way my responsibility? I recommended that they wear similar clothing/protection as I did, and they didnt, they got heavily injured, not my fault, not my problem, yeah it sucks for them, but in the end, its not my fault or my responsibility.






    Anyway, sorry for the rant guys, but I hate when stuff like this comes up, and everyone is trying to be all pc and try to "help" when at the end of the day, those their trying to help are either too stupid, too ignorant, or too lazy to help themselves.


    So bring on the flame w/e

    Noob

    oh p.s. I was also heavily bruised from that cylinder(obviously) depiste the gear i was wearing, but that was it, except for the 2 small bandaged cuts on my forehead
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2010
  9. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    Are you seriously trying to compare your little drama at work with what the guys in Afghanistan are going through????

    So at all these uber dangerous jobs you were at, when was the last time you were picking up body parts that were previously your mates? When was the last time that you were under constant threat of either being blown up or shot at? And when I say constant, I do mean constant! When was the last time that you risked being blown up by an IED every day on the drive to work? You may have faced danger in some ways at work, but we have strict health and safety rules that demand that an employer has provided all possible safeguards for the dangers the workforce could encounter in the workplace. Unfortunately, the Taliban don't hold much regard for our health and safety regulations.

    As for the soldiers signed up so it's their problem, that's crap. Yes the soldier signed up, and we have a moral duty as a nation to ensure that the soldier is afforded every protection available. They haven't been and they still aren't. Now as I mentioned you are by your employer, and if your employer isnt doing so, then it's a criminal offense, and a massive fine or jail. We also have a moral duty to ensure that the families of soldiers are given the correct amount of support and assistance, something that has always been lacking.

    EDIT: It's also nothing to do with being all "pc" for me at all, it's about me making a moral decision, based on experience and knowledge of the subject at hand, something you clearly are lacking on both.

    Further edit: You should also realise that soldiers aren't crying out for this or demanding extra attention/respect. They have done a thankless job for many years, and didn't expect adulation or perks for doing so then, as they don't now. The original question was a hypothetical question that has been raised.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2010
  10. NuTech

    NuTech Minimodder

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    96
    Thanks for taking the time to tell us all about your job, but as an analogy, it's entirely bogus.

    As you pointed out several times, it is your own skills, expertise and equipment that keeps you safe. Suffering a serious injury, such as when the main boom exploded, is generally because somebody wasn't taking the correct precautions and paid the price.

    When the hydraulics you work with become self-aware, turning into sentient and armed robot death machines that are deliberately trying to kill you, come back and tell us all about it.
     
    stuartpb likes this.
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Again, let's not get carried away with the drama and glory here. Police and firemen risk their lives (some firemen died in the line of duty not so long ago) and I can tell you some horror stories involving people dying and picking up body parts right from the front lines of the good old NHS. Nobody glorifies nursing, for instance, or makes computer games about it (except maybe Sim Hospital). And the crucial thing to remember is: while we undoubtedly need police, firemen, nurses and disaster rescue workers, we don't need soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Screw moral duty of care for our soldiers. If we cared we wouldn't have sent them to Afganisyan and Iraq in the first place. Sperm freezing is just token gesture, like a $35,-- medal; a distraction from the bigger moral question: why are these people risking their nuts in the first place? Because it seemed an exciting career? For misplaced sense of duty and honour? For a cheap medal and a tiny pension? To fight for oil and power?

    There are many reasons why soldiers sign up, but the only accurate one is to become a lowly paid mecenary for politicians and corporations. At least mercenaries know the deal and get paid accordingly. No glory required, and they can afford to pay for their own sperm freezing.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2010
  12. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    12,844
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    We're paying them to get shot at/exploded, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to stump up the cash for them having the chance to have children, even if they do have some rather unfortunate encounter with the wrong end of a gun, or the wrong end of an explosion.

    Nexxo, mercenaries are also.. Iffy. Never trust a Merc, a sentiment shared by a number of my friends (And in some cases, their parents) in the military. Not that this has much of a place in this discussion (Though, why does why we shouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq? We're there now, and there's not a fat lot that can be done about it)

    What about the soldiers in other parts of the world? Should we casually forget about their risks because Afghanistan/Iraq are in the news more?

    Personally, I think if the MOD want to at least part subsidise soldiers having their sperm frozen, then go for it. If I was deployed, for whatever reason, I'd bloody well want some of my troops on ice - Wouldn't you?
     
  13. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    Let's not get carried away with the drama and glory? Nexxo, what planet are you on? It isn't drama or glory at all, it's fact that soldiers go through a hell of a lot more than any other public services employee will, and they do so on a daily basis. Yes paramedics, firemen and the police are put in danger, but nothing like being in an active theatre of war. They also go through trauma too, but it isn't on the frequency of events that soldiers are experiencing. You are trying to play down the absolute horrors that soldiers face here, and that is just plain wrong.

    That's psycho babble ******** if ever I heard it!! When was the population given a referendum on whether we went to war or not? I would have chosen not to go to war, and I do not believe it is a war we will win without many lives being lost, if at all. But I will get behind the troops one hundred percent. I will fly the flags to welcome them home, does this make me stupid or silly? In your eyes yes, in mine I am showing them that there are still people who do care. Shame you cant say the same, eh? Should I turn my back on the soldiers and not show that I support them, because I dont want them to be there?

    Nexxo, are you purposely trying to offend me with this. I did mention that my dad was a soldier, and you are trying to suggest that soldiers are stupid for signing up, or at least that is how its coming across. You have also made other comments, which could be seen as calling into question the integrity of soldiers too.

    EDIT: And before you try the old "you are taking it too personally line" I challenge you to post that anywhere else where there are ex servicemen or their families, and see if they would take being labelled corporate mercenaries as being personal and offensive. Also tell them that they are stupid for signing up and see what reaction you get.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2010
  14. Pieface

    Pieface Modder

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,355
    Likes Received:
    134
    Actually, your little rant is wrong. You say they need to invest in safety equipment for their profession. Any job you take your employers are required to give you the necessary equipment before you undergo the work. And you moan about them not preparing? How can you prepare against an IED cutting your leg off, or your balls off? Wear full body armour from head to toe? Therefore losing all manouverability...
     
  15. NuTech

    NuTech Minimodder

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    96
    I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're being far too idealistic in regards to our current military 'situation'.

    It's all good sitting on the sidelines, throwing your arms up into the air while decrying the war and debating the necessity of soldiers, but the fact remains that they are there and probably will be for a very long time.

    I didn't vote for the last government, I didn't want us going to war and I most definitely didn't believe in the 'justification' for it. But as a British citizen I have to accept that it is happening whether I like it or not. Bitterness and outrage will help who exactly?

    Continuing to theorise what should of happened and how things should be goes beyond idealism - it's delusional. Something about a stable door and a horse bolting comes to mind.

    I fully appreciate all of our civil servants, far too many of them are asked to do so much for so little and in return receive virtually zero appreciation or recognition. That sucks, but taking it out on soldiers doesn't make it any better.
     
  16. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    172
    Agreed. It's also worth pointing out again that soldiers do not ask to be glorified, or be put on a pedestal. They want to do their job, do it well and get back home to their families in one piece. Now you say we don't have a moral duty Nexxo to our soldiers, in that case we don not have a moral duty to ensure nurses, doctors, firemen, policemen have every protection that is at our disposal either. Soldiers aren't asking for a bigger slice of the pie than other public servants, they want the same knowledge that their government is doing everything in it's power to ensure they are receiving the optimum defense, nothing more nothing less.

    Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with people coming out to welcome the troops home, it's something that the public enjoy as do the soldiers. Who is it hurting to do so exactly? Just because you don't want to fly the flags and celebrate those who have made it home, and mourn those who don't, this doesn't mean that the sentiment shown by others who do wish to do so is any less valid or silly. Would you rather our troops experienced what the US troops did coming home from Vietnam, when they were spat on, ignored, abused and assaulted by the public? You are obviously anti army, for your own reasons, but to cast dispersions on the character and integrity of our armed forces is something you should be ashamed of. You are not right all the time Nexxo, and this time you are wrong.
     
  17. ufk

    ufk Licenced Fool

    Joined:
    3 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    10
    For those querying the amount of soldiers suffering from genital injuries from explosions in combat
    Hidden cost of war, its an american article but the figures are going to be somewhat the same %wise

    It covers a fair bit of historical facts about combat injuries but the relevant part is thus
    The surgeon has since retracted his statement
     
  18. Rotcrack

    Rotcrack Food Maestro.

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    928
    Likes Received:
    78
    The Naafi bar on Arrse.co.uk would be suitable; you'd get ripped to shreds in there Nexxo.

    I didn't want the war - many soldiers didn't want the war but they have to go through with it because its their job. It must be hard to do the exact opposite of what you wish and hope for? The least we can do is show support for our soldiers while they are carrying out what our government wanted.
     
  19. M7ck

    M7ck Ⓜod Ⓜaster

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,600
    Likes Received:
    167
    Surely you are all going a little off topic now?
     
  20. Rotcrack

    Rotcrack Food Maestro.

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    928
    Likes Received:
    78
    Its been off topic for quite along time. The war statement was a reply to something up there ^^^^.
     

Share This Page