Afghanistan Veterans With Genital Wounds Receive Little Help From Pentagon

Submitted by Broadsword on Mon, 2012-07-30 22:37

Article here. Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON -- For the growing number of soldiers and Marines whose genitals are damaged or destroyed by blasts from improvised explosive devices while in combat, the Pentagon has decided it will not provide some critical reproductive health benefits.

To put it bluntly, if you are sent to war and an IED blast blows off your testicles, the U.S. government will not pay for your wife to have in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination using donated sperm.

The new policy, quietly adopted without announcement by the Defense Department, responds to the growing demands of the more than 1,800 veterans with genital wounds that the government that sent them to war now help them return to normal life, including raising a family.

The policy authorizes payment for some reproductive procedures for the first time, including limited in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. But it also specifically excludes covering males who cannot produce sperm. "Third-party donations and surrogacy are not covered benefits," the policy states firmly.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I dunno, I am a little on the fence about this. I am generally against arificial conception no matter what the circumstances.

This seems like it is appeasing the desires of women more so than men.

Also, adoption is always an option. Perhaps the goverment could help with adoption fees.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2012-07-31 01:50

Personally, I think that this is another compelling argument against any man joining the military. I mean, the country you're signing up to risk your life to defend will do next to nothing to protect you if you get attacked by a female. On top of this, if you make the ultimate sacrifice and lose your testes, they won't do very much to help you start a family. So, why do a favour for an ungrateful nation isn't willing to return it?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Wed, 2012-08-01 04:26

I don't know if in the past in other places at other times it was any different, but men really are used up and discarded creatures when it comes to anything "the state", whether it be a tribe, or a settlement, or a clan, or a nation, seems to want from them in terms of military service. I suppose it'd be one thing if even you truly were appreciated for all you give up in the process of being an instrument of foreign policy, but you're not. As articles like this one shows, the typical government, whether it be the US or any other, seems perfectly happy to do all it can to get you into its military service but once you have been rendered unusable by something, whether it be combat, illness, or accident, they seem to be awfully slow to help you recover much less show a lot of gratitude (and I mean real, enduring gratitude-- not the "hang in there son, job well done, we appreciate you," you get for a few seconds from an officer visiting you in the infirmary).

War is a really stupid idea. Getting men to realize this and refuse to participate in the organized killing of one another for whatever reasons should be the number one goal of whatever is left of "the peace movement". You'd think they would be all for men's rights, as men's rights include the right not to be used up and discarded by whomever: the state, disaffected wives/girlfriends, etc. But they are curiously silent. Guess "the peace movement" is no longer with us and alas probably won't be again for quite some time.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2012-08-02 03:04