PinkerInk

This is definitely a catch-22 in my opinion. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. Looking at it from a contractual stand point, she does have a duty to fill and unless there was a clause in that contract stating she could decline deployment due to childcare issues, then they had every right to discharge her. That's not to say I agree with their decision, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

If I was in her position, I wouldn't go either. My kids would definitely come before my 'duty'.

I honestly think this is absolutley rediculous, the government knows just how many single parents are in the country. What they should have done was come up with some type of child care system themselves if they want to be that strict. All those enlisted who have children are offered a govenment babysitter, SOMETHING! People go and fight for this country and they are expected to just leave their family second behind the government yet the government places us second. They have more conceren for this womens deployment then they do for a child with out a mother.

I think the government was a bit unreasonable in this case due to the fact that this woman seems like she is on her own. Putting the country before one's offspring or kin is not a fair choice for any person. There should be an exception for single parents especially ones that without relatives to care for their children. She lost her military benefits while she was trying to get proper childcare for the family. Situations like this are problematic and unfortunate. Hopefully she gets everything worked out in the end

I understand that this woman was under contract, but she should not have been dismissed for not responding to the call of duty, considering her dilemma. Here is a young woman who decides to make the effort to protect her country in a war most U.S. citizens don't even understand. Not many people can tell you why American soldiers are in Afghantisan, and if they did know, now they are probably confused. I commend anyone who takes it upon themselves to join the United States Army.

Bad enough she was discharged but she could possibly face court-martial. I think that is too extreme. It goes bak to the age-old debate, you can be 18 to join the army, risk losing your life, but 21 to consume alcohol? The same young woman who signed up to serve, honor and protect your country and would sacrifice leaving her infant son with others, is now being punished??! I'm sorry but it just sounds too ridicilous.

It is clear that the American government and army is selfish. I now see through the facade of everyday citizens being this country's priority. John F. Kennedy once said, "ask no what your country can do for you, but what you an do for your country." However, he also said, "A man does what he must — in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers, and pressures — and that is the basis of all human morality." While it is a great honor and selfless act to serve your country, one must help themselves before they can help others. This mother had a responsibilty, and that responsibilty was not the army, nor herself, but her infant son. Until that boy is 18 years old, as a mother, he should alwyas be her first call of duty.

At the end of the day, the family unit and the preservation of the family, particularly minority families, significantly outweights serving in the army. No child should be left alone to fend for his/herself so that innocent people can be killed in a pointless world. As a world and as the human race, we have got to do better! Where is the U.S. Army's sense of human morality?

pointless war**

After reading the article, I cannot say that I feel bad about her deployment. It's sad that she had to choose between the country she decided to fight for and her child. I dont know if anyone has family in the army or military, but they are both very strict. They gave her a chance, I believe that a 30 day extension is more than enough to find child care for your child. If the army gives her leniency they will have to give all other single parents leniency. It is a problem that the army is better off avoiding.

It is America, you do not get everything that you want. She was in the army, knew all the rules, had baby and things didn't go as planned. It's like once you sign up for something, you are bound to the contract until they terminate you. It was a job and service she had to do. It was sad that she had no family member to help her out. What does it do for all the other single parents? Sometimes sacrifices are necessary, not all decisions will work in your favor. You have to look at the outside situation and see how it will affect everyone. Now she is stripped from all her benefits, what can she fall back on now?

Alexis Hutchinson knew what she signed up for when she entered the army. When joining the military, you pretty much become government property and must fight for the country whenever called upon. All of the soldiers were required to sign the military Form D-A 53-05. Therefore, she knew that she would have to get her family care in order or there would be consequences. I believe that Hutchinson should have taken care of her own situation with her child way before her deployment to Afghanistan. Although the discharge seems harsh, she signed a contract which clearly states the consequences due to certain actions. She should have been more responsible in that situation. Yet, I would do the same thing if I were in her shoes, it is always family first. Although she lost many medical coverage and insurance from the government, she still has her child in her hands. It sucks that she got discharged for not getting on the plane. I am looking at this as a choice between the government and the family. Which ever one is chosen, there will a consequence for not choosing the other one. Just like myself, I am pretty sure that majority of the people would choose family first.

The way i see it is that this woman changed her mind about going to Afghanistan and maybe might have regret getting involve in the Army especially now that she has a baby. She knew what she agreed on when she enrolled in the Army. However, i believe there should be some level of flexibility for when things like having a baby happen. The mother should be excused from deploying. The truth is that this woman has to serve a duty as a mother first before anything else because she just brought a child to this world who is still unable to take care of itself, she's a single mother which is even harder and she might not have anybody of trust to take care of the child. So no matter how much she agreed on the strict terms of the army contract there's a young life involved in this case that she can't just leave alone or in the wrong hands. I understand that the government can be strict but they should have some exceptions to their rules for cases like this one and maybe put the woman on hold for a while but not discharge her completely.

if i was sitting next to Alexis...i would hug her and cry with her...i understand what mental condition and chaos she is in right now. i salute her courage. it is not easy to leave your 10 months old baby just like this and go away on a journey where no one can guarantee your life. starting from the army's view point. i think they are justified to the extent that they fired her. it was very nice of them not to punish her with a court martial but where they went wrong was the point when they did not grant her benefits. i think that here the army could have acted in a better way. one of the options could have been to grant her benefits and the second option could be to let her stay in the army and serve inside the U.S of A. but they attempted neither. now she does not have a job, is not eligible to any benefits and trust me...its going to be next to impossible for her to find a reasonable job now. so what good did the army do to her...she has been their soldier for a while..its not the way you treat someone who has been loyal to you for years.
now justifying Alexis's side. i strongly believe that she did have someone to take care of her child before she committed but now for some reason she does not have that option available anymore. it truly would not have been easy for her NOT to show up at the airport for the departure and become a national joke. but when it comes to a mother and her love for her child, nothing can over rule that love. its not possible to leave your infant and go away on a journey where you fear death. and death is a fear not for her, but for her child. what if she never came back, what would happen to her kid. i know children can grow up at other places and country comes first but from a mother's view point its not practical enough. the woman had the courage to say no to her work and become news, she must have known that serious charges could be imposed on her. but she did what she did. she did it for her baby. thats the most important thing for a mother in this world, her child. thats it ! but the army truly spoiled her carrier. another important fact. now either people will look at her and shout," you're not strong enough girl" or be like," oh! i pity you sweetheart.come here i'll help you out". Either way, you just killed her dignity and self respect her overall personality. im not saying that now everyone could come up with the same excuse but the point is that the army should find extra cushions for its soldiers if its going to fight in other countries for years and years and years...afterall soldiers are humans too...they have a life too...other responsibilties too...ofcourse they are mothers too ! love u Alexis.

Miss. Hutchinson should not have been dishonorable discharge just because she was unable to find child care service. Her first priority is to her child; I understand that she has a contract with the military but, thirty days extension is not enough time to find child care especially when there is none. What if she’d answer to her call of duty and her temporary child care fell through while she’s away; then she will be deemed as a bad mother by society as Russo said “dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t”.

After seeing the article and seeing that Hutchinson is a female of color puts this in a slightly different perspective for me, but not much. This was still a contractual agreement, which Hutchinson broke, and as a result, disciplinary actions must follow suit. I do not believe the action was unjust or even cruel. She should have had her arrangements completely settled when she made the choice to 1 - have a child and 2 - to sign that form stating that she would be in the army. She is an adult who made adult choices all the way around and needs to deal with the consequences.

If she signed up for the army before she became pregnant, the question should have been whether she would be able to care for a child with the possibility of dying in battle. Like someone pointed out in class, Hutchinson had 9 months + 10 months to prepare for her child's future.

Now with her being a woman of color, I think there might be more to discuss such as her socio economic status (which might have had an effect on her enlisting and her inability to provide childcare) and the continuing stereotype of women of color being single moms. A post, from Nedrick, said "this woman seems like she is on her own...There should be an exception for single parents especially ones that without relatives to care for their children." Again, she made the choice to have a child with the father of the baby and arrangements should have been made. If not with him, then with his family, his extended family, her extended family, a friend, a friend of a friend, someone! I do not think there should be execptions for single parents in the army since they choose to sign documents and enlist in the army. Being on her own is no excuse for her not to handle her business.

I believe she should not be completely dismissed for not answering her call of duty. Unfortunately this government has rules and they dont bend over backwards for anyone unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of what your true intentions are. I feel that a part of her wanted to make sure her son was safe before she was deployed. No one can measure how long that will take, and it seems like she was trying to fulfill her duty as a mother which should naturally come first than your duty to your country.
She has a duty to both the country and her son but, her son should come before a country which she serves under a contract because that country wont look out for her 100%. Her son has a duty to her for her whole life no matter what she does. I guess in this case blood is thicker than land in my opinion.