Mommy Gets Fired After Fertility Treatment

[Shek]

I agree with the blogger - the school had every right to fire her for violating her contract.

http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2006/05/...fertility.html

Mommy Gets Fired After Fertility Treatment

Every so often you come across a story that leads you back to a truism in life, "No one every promised fair."

Suppose you were a gay guy and decided to join the military and started swushing about in your ACUs announcing you were sexually attracted to your squad leader. Or, suppose you were employed by a pro-life group and decided to support a woman's right to abortion. In either case, there is little doubt what would follow when it became apparent your lifestyle or beliefs ran counter to that held by your employer and stipulated conditions of employment. You find yourself unemployed and out on the street.

That is essentially what happened in the story reported in, "Teacher Says She Was Fired Over in-Vitro." It is the story of French teacher Kelly Romenesko who has a website detailing her situation in which she says is "discrimination." Her claim is that after she got pregnant using in-vitro fertilization she was fired and that is not fair! Other's have done it she says! The problem with Kelly's claim is that she was teaching in a Catholic school.

She had a signed an employment contract that she would "teach and act according to Catholic doctrine and the moral and social teachings of the Catholic Church." She didn't adhere to that says the school ... hence the termination is justified.

"All she was trying to do was have a child, which of course should be a wonderful thing," her lawyer said. Excuse me, Mr. Lawyer! Doesn't the contract count?

I don't agree with the Catholic Church on it's position on in-vitro fertilization. It teaches in-vitro procedure is morally wrong because it replaces the "natural" conjugal union between husband and wife. It is sort of funny coming from a Church who has a dismal track record on anything dealing with sex. But that is what they teach. The concern for all the nice little female eggs is also part of the Church's position, even though you would think they would celebrate the idea that in-vitro allows creation of little Catholics that otherwise would never occur.

Of course, their real problem is that the Church has always wanted to give their God credit for what science can do just fine. To those who embrace the mysticism of religion that can be pretty unsettling to see mankind's science triumph over ignorance.

Nevertheless, Kelly is way off base here. She signed a contract and violated the stated teachings of her employer. Whether others have done it or not, is immaterial. She is the one who did it and got fired as a result.

Of course the Catholic Church doesn't stand a chance in today's court system. After all, she "just wanted to make a baby." Contracts and law matter little to the liberal courts who have long ago stripped from citizens their right to discriminate based upon their beliefs and morality.

[THL]

I am not sure on this one. Only because the story does not say if she is married. If she is not married and is working in a Catholic schol and either tries or succeeds to get pregnant, then I can completely defend the school since being unmarried and pregnant is absolutely against what the Catholic church stands for. There was this teacher last fall that was in that situation. But if the teacher below is married and got pregnant via in-vitro then I would be more sympathetic. I am assuming that since she even mentioned in-vitro to her employer, she is unmarried though. My assumption is that she told them she got pregnant via in-vitro as a defense against them thinking she was running around trying to get pregnant in more "unholy" ways.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by shek

I agree with the blogger - the school had every right to fire her for violating her contract.

Yep, she broke the contract, not the school.

[Shek]

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

I am not sure on this one. Only because the story does not say if she is married. If she is not married and is working in a Catholic schol and either tries or succeeds to get pregnant, then I can completely defend the school since being unmarried and pregnant is absolutely against what the Catholic church stands for. There was this teacher last fall that was in that situation. But if the teacher below is married and got pregnant via in-vitro then I would be more sympathetic. I am assuming that since she even mentioned in-vitro to her employer, she is unmarried though. My assumption is that she told them she got pregnant via in-vitro as a defense against them thinking she was running around trying to get pregnant in more "unholy" ways.

The Catholic Church says no to IVF. Doesn't matter if you are married. As such, by pursuing IVF, she was violating the rules that she was contractually obligated to follow.

[THL]

Originally Posted by shek

The Catholic Church says no to IVF. Doesn't matter if you are married. As such, by pursuing IVF, she was violating the rules that she was contractually obligated to follow.

Yeah, and I agree that she would have violated the rules and they could have fired her for it and it would have been her own fault.

The thing that disturbs me about this is not that she was fired for breaking the rules, that I think is fine, but rather the rule itself.

My thought on religion is that they should be beneficial and supportive. A religion telling its followers that if they cannot get pregnant on their own, and a couple wants a baby, that they cannot find other means to get pregnant seems wrong to me. It seems very cruel and I feel uncomfortable with cruelty in religion.

I guess I should not let this not sit well with me since I am not Catholic and have no immediate plans for converting.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

A religion telling its followers that if they cannot get pregnant on their own, and a couple wants a baby, that they cannot find other means to get pregnant seems wrong to me.

Adoption is acceptable.

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

I guess I should not let this not sit well with me since I am not Catholic and have no immediate plans for converting.

Bingo!

[Asim Aquil]

Religion should conform with science. The real baby making process IS the fertilization of the sperm and egg.

Morally speaking I'm of the view that a child should grow up with a good father (figure). Technically I think she deserves being fired for breach of contract on those terms. By saying so, the church or the school is declaring that even married couples cannot indulge in IVF.

[THL]

Originally Posted by Confed999

Adoption is acceptable.

Yeah, it is. But let me say that when I was working on getting pregnant with my small room mate, adoption was not what I wanted. I wanted to be pregnant and the fact that it was not something that was coming very easily did not automatically make adoption an option. Luckily I was able to pop a few pills and it all worked out without the use of needles and little clear plastic dishes, but at that point (and this is going to sound mean) I did not want someone else's baby - I wanted my own. Actually carrying a child was hugely important to me. Anyone who has had a difficult time getting pregnant will absolutely understand.

And luckily now that I have been there and done that I can move on to other things, like working toward that H2.

[Shek]

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

Yeah, and I agree that she would have violated the rules and they could have fired her for it and it would have been her own fault.

The thing that disturbs me about this is not that she was fired for breaking the rules, that I think is fine, but rather the rule itself.

My thought on religion is that they should be beneficial and supportive. A religion telling its followers that if they cannot get pregnant on their own, and a couple wants a baby, that they cannot find other means to get pregnant seems wrong to me. It seems very cruel and I feel uncomfortable with cruelty in religion.

I guess I should not let this not sit well with me since I am not Catholic and have no immediate plans for converting.

I agree with you here, which is why I'm a bad Catholic.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

Yeah, it is. But let me say that when I was working on getting pregnant with my small room mate, adoption was not what I wanted.

You hadn't promised to adhere to Catholic tradition either...

[THL]

Originally Posted by shek

I agree with you here, which is why I'm a bad Catholic.

Nah, Shek. Maybe it's not you. Maybe you're the good Catholic and everyone else are the bad Catholics

[THL]

Originally Posted by Confed999

You hadn't promised to adhere to Catholic tradition either...

Yeah. Sometimes I think that religion is just not for me at all as I am not the best buddhist lately either. I am racking up those bad Karma points lately like I am in some sort of race for them.

[Asim Aquil]

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

Yeah. Sometimes I think that religion is just not for me at all as I am not the best buddhist lately either. I am racking up those bad Karma points lately like I am in some sort of race for them.

Haven't we all from time to time?

I'm not a believer in Karma, though I do believe in consequences of every action taken; in this life and the hereafter.

I believe in repentence. God, I believe, can forgive everything unless you've wronged another human being. Then only that person can fogive you.

What would buddha do?

[THL]

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

I believe in repentence. God, I believe, can forgive everything unless you've wronged another human being. Then only that person can fogive you.

What would buddha do?

Buddha would say "you're out of luck, dude. you did the bad deed, now deal with it."

Or at least the straight forward tell it like it is Buddha that I would be would say it like that.

[Wooglin]

I think the question is: Does that contract extend to outside the classroom? She may have agreed to adhere to catholic teachings and such but does that extend to her personal life outside the classroom? I'm guessing that will be the legal argument, but it all depends on the wording and legal interpretation of the contract.