First time to post in D&D - hope not to regret it... anyways 12 weeks is certainly not viable. I'm a pediatrician and I can tell you that deliveries before 24 weeks were not even attempted to be resuscitated during my training (only 7 years ago). So even with an intensive medical techniques available the viability cutoff is usually around 24weeks. if anything we might try and resuscitate a 22 or 23 weeker only if we think there is a discrepency in dating the fetus
Whatever, dude, the rest of your post is striken from the record because your education level disqualifies your from this forum. Save it for the Feedback Forum, Doogie. Just getting you prepped. Thanks for the post. To respond specifically to your point: My baby, nine months, has a red toe, we have tried two courses of Keflex, and it is pretty much gone, but has come back a little. We culutred for MRSA, nothing doing. Its not spreading, no fever, no discomfort. Do we just blow it off?
Not at all giddy. If she wanted to have the baby more power to her. My question would be are you okay with the school district firing her because of her circumstances? I would say its none of the administration's goddam business what she decides to do and she shouldn't lose her job over a decision of keeping it. We hear all the time about religions (especially catholics) calling for the sanctity of life and abortion should be banned. Here's a situation where a woman decides to honor the child and she's punished for it. Sounds a bit off to me
I haven't read the story, but I would assume she is not getting punished (fired) for keeping the baby, but rather for having relations outside marriage. It would not surprise me if she had a contract which includes a morality clause as expected by the Catholic Church. I suspect the school is within their rights to fire her.
A wonderful thread? About babies who survive an attempt on their life? Well that is good news but wonderful? I don't know about that.
They probably do but what I was bringing up and what I think MC Mark was bringing up was that she could've aborted and not told anyone and kept her job. Instead she didn't hide the fact that she got pregnant and isn't going to abort it. One would figure that the school would cut her some slack since she does have the option of abortion but isn't taking it.
could be a fungal infection on top of the bacterial one. in any event like I always tell parents - mother nature is usually better than me, so let's watch and see if this gets worse or better and then make a plan.. (and by the way I don't think you can call someone born in the 60's "Doogie" )
This is the main stuff that I have problems with. Abortion merely for convenience's sake is a horrible concept. Of course it goes hand and fist along with the ridiculous lack of accountability and responsibility in our society.
My point was not that the fetus is viable at 12 weeks, I guess I should have been more clear... My position is that a woman who is choosing an elective abortion should make that choice as early as possible. I would not be opposed to legislation that would limit that period of choice to the first 12 weeks (with exceptions for birth defects, the mother's physical health, etc.) so long as the people on the pro-life side would stop their attempts to ban abortion altogether. The article said that “They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,” so I think that 12 weeks is a good compromise between banning abortion altogether and having a viable fetus.
I can't agree with you more about this. I believe that women who chose to have an abortion should be restricted by a time limit that is more stringent than lax. any exceptions after this should be because of maternal health concerns or because of possible intellectual concerns that have may prevented the mother knowing she was pregnant to begin with (the 16 y.o. with Downs syndrome who is molested but no one realizes is pregnant until she shows at 12-16 weeks). two more points.... 1. I find it hard to reconcile that we can charge someone with a murder if he causes the miscarriage of someones baby through violent means (ex. boyfriend beats up pregnant girlfriend who then miscarries) or even a women who causes harm to their own fetus (pregnant crack user); but allow elective abortions. Basically it is saying "how dare you harm that child... unless you are electively choosing to do so". Don't get me wrong however, I also have a problem with us telling women what they have to do with their body and thus I think time-limited elective abortions is the most reasonable compromise. 2. Whenever I hear that men shouldn't be allowed in this debate because we don't get pregnant, I think of the following. Does that mean women shouldn't have been allowed to vote on military/war issues when they couldn't join the army? Or even now, only allowing their vote to count for 10% since they only represent 10% of combatants. (guessing with the percentage). I'm sure mothers/wives/sisters of male soldiers feel they have a huge stake in these issues, the same as husbands/boyfriends of pregnant women feel they have the same stake. In other words it is an issue that affects our society and thus our society should be allowed to weigh in. and since I'm on a roll, 3. Why do we allow teens the privacy to consent for medical issues (without disclosing to parents) regarding pregnancy/STDs but not other procedures. I know the argument is that at least they will seek medical care if there is no fear of parental disclosure. but if they are supposedly mature enough to make such crucial decisions like abortion, why can't I see them for an ear infection/strep throat without the huge parental consent issues. It's a terrible position as a pediatrician to be put into and fortunately I've been able to convince everyone of my teen patients who are pregnant to open up to friends and eventually parents so they get the support they need.
Just to reiterate, I am posting from a perspective of not knowing the school's code of conduct for employees and what her teaching contract looks like. That being said, I would expect that the school has to be consistent if they have a "morality" clause. They have to treat her the same as anyone else who violates that clause. How can a Catholic school expect a teacher to teach the faith if they can't live the faith? The teacher loses credibility. I would assume if she went into the director's office and he fired her and then she said, "You know, I could have had an abortion and I'd still have a job." She/He could reply, "It is great that you chose life over your job. You also could still have a job if you lived up to the contract you signed" Some may consider it cold or that the school has a lack of understanding, but we all have choices to make and generally we know the ramifications of those choices. (I have taken a break from typing this to search for the article) Here is one of them: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pregnantteacher.suit.ap/ She is suing and her argument is sexual discrimination because the pregnancy is a standard that discriminates against women since there are no telltale signs that a man is having relations outside of marriage. Legally (from my layman's opinion), she probably has an argument on that point because it appears the school is covered by the wording in their teacher's handbook.
