With regard to "Military will drop policy punishing pregnancies" (Dec. 26), I have just one real issue. The critics say it infringes on the basic rights of the individual.

Am I the only one who has read General Order No. 1? The entire order infringes on the basic rights of the individual with regard to the most debated topics: no alcohol, no gambling, no pornography and no sex. These are all perfectly legal in the States, with certain exceptions of course, such as underage drinking and illegal forms of pornography.

These rules were put into place so as not to offend our host country’s religious laws. Now alcohol I will give you, there is no need for drunkenness in our environment. But why can’t we have a little friendly poker game? Someone ends up owing someone else a lot of money and doesn’t pay. OK, you have a good reason for that, too. No pornography: There will always be the sick people with the wrong kind, so I guess you got me there, too. No sex: Well, that’s perfectly legal and clearly the Muslims are having it because there are a lot of them here. However, pregnancies can cause problems for the units, so OK, no sex.

My point here is, all the rules infringe on our basic individual rights. To use that argument to eliminate one rule — because clearly if you are pregnant, you have been having sex, which is against the rules — then you must eliminate them all using the same argument. However if you are going to break the rules — and I don’t really care if you do or not — and if you get caught, you will have to deal with it. End of story.

Staff Sgt. Cliff RodgersBagram Air Field, Afghanistan