CNN.com readers snapped to attention at Wednesday afternoon's announcement that the Pentagon was planning to open combat roles to women.

Commenters who identified themselves as male and as veterans overwhelmingly -- but certainly not unanimously -- opposed the change.

The story's very first comment raised the question of pregnancy's effect on battle readiness (some comments may be edited for brevity, clarity and style:

Common Sense: What happens with maternity leave when (you're) in a combat zone?

A presumably female reader replied:

Laura Flowers: They get reassigned duties and sent back to a more appropriate post if they're pregnant obviously. Use your common sense. Besides, women will be on the front lines typically only in an MOS (military occupation specialty) that qualifies for that. The exceptions might be mechanics, commo, medics and supply.

The back-and-forth continued through more than 1,700 comments in the first few hours.

Bakari: This is good. Everyone should be able to fight for their country no matter the gender.

Jon: Warfare is NOT a gender neutral playing field. This is going to get a lot of people killed.

Many expressed concern that enemy forces would rape female service members captured in battle.

Aezel: I have mixed feelings about this. I have no doubt about women's ability to fight, kill and be effective soldiers. I do however shudder to think what would happen to them in a POW camp in the Middle East. Many of the enemies of the United States they will be asked to face are utter barbarians. Men can be tortured, but the sexual violence that can be additionally be visited upon a captured woman takes it to the next level of inhumane. I wish our female soldiers good luck.

Finn: Obviously you think male POWs are never raped because they don't talk about it. Guess again.

But others pointed out that many women already in the military are raped by their own comrades.

101TestUser: Women in the military are being raped every day ... by other US soldiers. Including gang rape. Other Americans are the greatest threat to female U.S. soldiers. The solution is to get these rapists out of the military. Go see "The Invisible War" if you are actually concerned about this issue.

But the most discussed issue was whether women are physically and emotionally capable of meeting the same training standards as men and of operating under battlefield conditions.

Jeff: Being a former Army man ... lets' make sure that if it's open, the physical requirements are not lessened. I would not want to have to move / carry a 300-pound Pioneer box with a woman that can only carry 75 pounds worth of weight. If women get into the infantry or any field that is physically exerting, I will expect them to be a very buff looking woman. You want the rights, then you better carry your weight, no excuses, no exceptions otherwise stay out of my MOS.

Unknown: Some of us can do it, some of us can't. I agree with the policy at least allowing for the opportunity for the most elite female soldiers to be included in combat units; however, the standards should not be lowered. Lowered standards means more people killed.

WheresmySandwich: To lower standards would be an insult to both genders, especially women who want to prove they're just as tough as their male counterparts.

Ralph M: My father landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944. He was a combat medic. Treating wounded and dying men was difficult, but treating women casualties would go against OUR values in this country relating to our mothers, sisters and aunts, etc. Other countries do not value women as much as we do in this country. I am the father of six daughters. I do not want them in combat. How much political correctness do we need? We allowed gays to openly march in the San Diego Gay Pride parade last year in military uniform. There is nothing sacred in this liberal society we have created. Be a woman and all that goes with it. You do not want to get shot and bleed to death on some foreign land that really does not care that you are there. If our country is attacked -- sure fight and die, but equal opportunity can and probably will get you killed.

Some comments drew a connection between allowing women in combat and last year's decision to allow gay personnel to serve openly.

Lazicus: Retired soldier and not a huge fan of the gay lifestyle. That said, I'd take a gay man at my side over a female of any stripe if we were under heavy attack. Men are men and women are women, and they are not the same.

Many commenters, not all of them women, pointed out that women already serve in the military and have performed admirably under hostile fire.

sallymae: I hate to tell you guys, but as a WOMAN VETERAN, we serve and do the same jobs as MEN and get the same pay OR HIGHER than men. Women outrank men, and there are more women officers than men. If you're too insecure to handle that, then prove it. Put on a pair of combat boots and grow a some!

I can bet the trolls sitting at home with beer bellies and no jobs are the ones disrespecting the women who will be saving your butts! Enlist -- serve our country -- and then come talk to me! BTW -- I can kick you ass any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Another common thread was concern over service interruptions brought about by menstrual cycles. That brought this sharp reply: