Should Army Men and Women Have Families?
This may be offensive to those who have somebody in war. If you can't handle my opinion, then don't comment on this debate.
I understand that somebody has to do the job. And i respect those who fight because i get to do the thing i love. They are brave and courageous.
However, i think it is selfish of them to go to war when they have a family or about to have a child. Some parts of me think there should be a law of Army men and women to not start a family or have a family other than their original family. Why? Because they leave the women and their children behind in stress and distraught.
I do think it is not selfish of them to fight in a war. Because they are fighting for the people they love. I understand that perspective. However, in another perspective it is selfish. Especially for the child. And for the mother or the spouse who has to do the hard house cleaning work.
This is my opinion. I think it is fact. And don't get me wrong, some parts of me thinks that creating this law is outrageous and ignorant. Everybody deserves a family. And besides, a family is worth to fight for. But i don't think they "should" start a family.
Yes
Side Score: 7
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
Just to clear this up before I dispute, I am not against men and women in the Army having families. It's their decision over whether or not they do. Freedom of choice. In all honesty, not everybody should have a family. Yes, they are beneficial, but in all honesty, not everyone should because it'll eventually cause overpopulation, unless most families only have one child. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Such a law has serious flaws to it. To begin with, consider a scenario where an 18 year old boy has a child since he was 16. Unplanned, unexpected, a mistake if you will. The 16 year old boy decides to keep the child, and attempts to do his best. Now let's say a war were to break out. At age 18, this boy, now a man, decides he wants to fight for his country. If we have a country where this is sort of the status quo (Consider the current levels of teen pregnancy) less people will be eligible to join the military. Further, even in peace times, the amount of people protecting the country from potential threats would also be dwindled down. The law wouldn't be able to truly cover these possibilities because they are common place and purely accidental. Further, the law would have to state which kind of family a soldier could not have, for is not your parents part of your family? I'd be willing to bet that, statistically (And no I don't have any to back me up on this, so I admit the possibility I'm wrong) that most of the current individuals fighting in our armed forces are individuals who, if not for the military, would still be living with their parents for one reason or another. I'm currently 21 and am in this scenario. Because i have siblings and a mother, should this not bar me from military service? If all we can get in our military is those who have no relatives, or only distant ones, then our military would be run thin and almost meaningless. On a moral level, I don't see a moral quarrel with the act in and of itself. The immoral thing to do would be to purposely have a family in order to cause them suffering by going to war and never being with them. Note the word purposely. Side: yes
1
point
|
1
point
aaaaaaah come to think of it i never actually thought about this before 0.0 hmmm i think tht maybe if they put a law tht army men and women should be people who are single is kinda btr, i mean some women dont have a brave heart and could have a heart attack if something happens to their loved ones at war. same goes for the women in war too...allot of people have a weak heart and i think tht maybe its better if the ones sent to fight dont have a pregnant wife or young children...i guess... Side: No
1
point
1
point
3
points
|
