Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

[catharina]

Yeah, Jim, you’re quite the man.

I assisted a minmum of 200 hundred women through unexpected pregnancies. I’ve been in attendance in 100 births. Early in October she told her principal she was three months pregnant. Let’s say the odds are great she was well aware of her condition for two months already. She’s an educated woman in her 20s. She was not a 14 yr-old clueless teen. Her position at the school was one that demanded extreme trust. Parents pay for private education. When that involves a standard of behavior from the teachers, that’s the end of the story. Painting her as helpless and confused is an option. So is painting her as incredibly manipulative with her employer, leaving her students and their families at risk. Dis she rather fall in between those two ectremes? Maybe. So why sue the school when the fault is hers?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

\

So having been proved wrong rather than graciously admitting it you choose to slime ,with innuendo, all those that disagree with you. What a class act.

Proved wrong? Hardly!

I don’t think so, but if you feel better thinking so, no problem.

Jim

 

[BamaRider]

You have to say one thing as far as following Catholic teaching goes, at least this woman wasn’t using artificial birth control.

I wonder how many in this forum would be able to admit this, never mind the people who fired her.

Jim

But I still say she can’t remain in the classroom. And I’ll leave it to the other side to make the argument as to why a pregnant, soon to be unwed mother, with no intent of marrying this baby’s daddy, is teaching and guiding students not only in the Faith, but how to make good decesions in life etc.

 

[blessedtoo]

You have to say one thing as far as following Catholic teaching goes, at least this woman wasn’t using artificial birth control.

I wonder how many in this forum would be able to admit this, never mind the people who fired her.

Jim

Is the irony of your statement lost of you?

Although you’ve been provided abundant proof by the always gracious catharina that this woman was three months pregnant at the time she took her job, you have set out to disprove the most obvious fact that she must have known. You desperately want to “prove” she was a clueless innocent.

YET, YET, Yet, you are PERFECTLY comfortable with the complete assumption, based on absolutely no fact or proof, that she was not using ABC? How utterly absurd! Do you not know that ABC can fail? What would ever lead you to conclude that she was not using ABC?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yeah, Jim, you’re quite the man.

Early in October she told her principal she was three months pregnant.

 

[He_Man]

You’ll have to prove that she knew she was pregnant prior to signing the contract with the school, before you can call her a liar.

Jim

Not really, I already called her that. Liar.

Anyway, it is obvious to anyone reading the case that she was well along.

if what you are insisting is that every situation we discuss on CA needs first hand accounts of those involved, then i suggest we close 98% of the threads on here.

After, I wasn’t there to see the Resurrection, so maybe you fell it is simply hearsay?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

He Man

Not really, I already called her that. Liar.

Gee, I’ve been warned by the moderators, for saying far less about George Bush.

However, when you call some one a liar, the burden of proof is yours. Otherwise, guess who the liar is?

Anyway, it is obvious to anyone reading the case that she was well along.

In October, she was only 6 weeks pregnant, if we believe that the article was accurate on this account.

if what you are insisting is that every situation we discuss on CA needs first hand accounts of those involved, then i suggest we close 98% of the threads on here.

No, just when you call some one a liar, you need to provide proof.

After, I wasn’t there to see the Resurrection, so maybe you fell it is simply hearsay?

Well, I’m not the one calling people liars, so I wonder what part of the gospel you don’t accept?

Jim

 

[catharina]

catharina;3219407:

Yeah, Jim, you’re quite the man.

Wait, how can this be, when you yourself posted the article which said she was 4.5 months, December 3rd?

No, the odds are great that she was not well aware, in August. She was fired in October, remember?

Big deal. My wife is a nurse, she didn’t know she was pregnant with our first child, until she missed her 2nd period, which made her almost 8 weeks.

Elementary school children are going to hardly know the situation. I liked to see what explanation was given to her students, when they asked why she wasn’t going to be their teacher anymore?

I’m not painting her as helpless and confused. I’m just not jumping on the band wagon of calling her a liar, as some have already done in this thread.

You’re presuming she was manipulative. There is no evidence provided to support such a claim.

Jim

Yep. No doubt. You’re The Man, Jim. While your nurse-wife’s experience with recognizing her pregnant state is no doubt of great interest to you, my own one-on-one experience with hundreds of pregnant women is of great interest to me.

The woman reported to work - pregnant. It was Sept 7th. She was more than two months pregnant. If she claimed she didn’t “know” then she at least suspected it to a certain degree.

Her students were preschoolers. They tend to be hugely facinated by pregnancy; I’m sure they were told nothing at all, other than the fact they would be getting a new teacher. No big deal. (I’ve worked with hundreds of them too.)

I’m presuming nothing. I’m tempted to presume you LOVE to argue. It’s still in the stage of being a temptation. Maybe you could go and annoy your wife for awhile?

 

[Steeltemplar]

You ought to go to the thread on" are fallen away Catholics more at risk" where he seems to be in contending everybody’s going to heaven.

When I started reading his posts in this thread I thought maybe there were two other Eric’s!

You mean an other Other Eric?

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

 

[surfinpure]

There has been no proof provided, that I have seen, that she knew she was pregnant when she applied for the job.

Jim

Jim,

Even if she were only six weeks pregnant at the time of signing her contract, she would have already missed one period (unless she had extremely irregular cycles), and she would have known that she had engaged, at least once, in pre-marital sex.

Having been pregnant myself more than once, I can tell you that by six weeks you have a pretty good idea. And even if she had no clue, she still ought not have given the impression to the hiring authorities that her lifestyle conveys Catholic morality.

 

[Steeltemplar]

One thing about this woman is that I don’t think she is displaying a repentant attitude at all. If she were truly contrite, I think that she would never have made a lawsuit or made this so public.

Is there any information as to what her current lifestyle is like? Has she changed and resolved to live by Catholic moral teaching?

 

[surfinpure]

Just curious …

Is anybody else here just sticking around on this thread to try to get through to a certain person? I’m just wondering what the point is anymore. Obviously we’ve all come to our own conclusions (and most of us in agreement) about the case in question. I believe I’m going to throw my hat into the ring now and go have an ice cream cone. And maybe a meaningful discussion with my four-year-old.

It’s been fun, y’all. :tiphat: Have a nice day. Even you, Jim.

~mary

 

[catharina]

One thing about this woman is that I don’t think she is displaying a repentant attitude at all. If she were truly contrite, I think that she would never have made a lawsuit or made this so public.

Is there any information as to what her current lifestyle is like? Has she changed and resolved to live by Catholic moral teaching?

You’ve made a very relevant point. Her own choices created a public scandal. Not the issue of her pregnancy but her decision to bring a lawsuit against a Catholic school is the action that led to this becoming a matter for scandal. Bad decision - not good.

 

[catharina]

Just curious …

Is anybody else here just sticking around on this thread to try to get through to a certain person? I’m just wondering what the point is anymore. Obviously we’ve all come to our own conclusions (and most of us in agreement) about the case in question. I believe I’m going to throw my hat into the ring now and go have an ice cream cone. And maybe a meaningful discussion with my four-year-old.

It’s been fun, y’all. :tiphat: Have a nice day. Even you, Jim.

~mary

Have a lovely time with your 4 yr-old.

My personal addition: On Saturday I joined a family to celebrate the 3rd birthday of their little girl. I’m a retired social worker who has worked as an extremely delighted nanny for the last few yrs. I was the nanny of this little child for more than two yrs. She weighed 1 pound, 1 ounce at birth (24 wks gestation) and she has no deficits at all. She is now in preschool FT and thriving.

 

[whatevergirl]

There has been no proof provided, that I have seen, that she knew she was pregnant when she applied for the job.

Jim

Hi Jim–where’s everyone getting this info from then? Oh my…someone tell me the real story–please? haha I guess I should scroll up and read further…later, I will do that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure

Even if she were only six weeks pregnant at the time of signing her contract.

We don’t know when she signed her contract.

Also, first time pregnancies, especially for unwed mother’s, generally go beyond 6 weeks before they finally come to grips with the idea, never mind. Many married women wait until their 3 months pregnant, before they announce it, because they could miscarry.
Whatever.

The point of my argument is that the Church is harmed more, by firing this woman, than keeping her on, and showing her compassion.

The long range effect in her relationship with the Church, and her child, will be devastating.

The Church is suppose to be in the business of saving souls, not throwing them out, when they’ve made mistakes.

Jim

 

[catharina]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure

We don’t know when she signed her contract.

Also, first time pregnancies, especially for unwed mother’s, generally go beyond 6 weeks before they finally come to grips with the idea, never mind. Many married women wait until their 3 months pregnant, before they announce it, because they could miscarry.
Whatever.

The point of my argument is that the Church is harmed more, by firing this woman, than keeping her on, and showing her compassion.

The long range effect in her relationship with the Church, and her child, will be devastating.

The Church is suppose to be in the business of saving souls, not throwing them out, when they’ve made mistakes.

Jim

Sure, Jim. The Church made her get pregnant. It made her report to work, pregnant, in violation of her employee contract. Then it upheld the contract - just to annoy her. Then because her virtue is impeccable, she and/or her lawyers went to the press with her lawsuit to maximize any sense of scandal. It’s gotta be the fault of that mean old Church. Poor dear girl. One still has to wonder at the actual nature of her connection to the Church and its teachings prior to her firing.

 

[catharina]

Is it at least clear to you, Mister Jim, that the Church did not throw her out (despite your notes of drama and hysteria)? She was fired by one Catholic school for breaking her contract.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure, Jim. The Church made her get pregnant. It made her report to work, pregnant, in violation of her employee contract. Then it upheld the contract - just to annoy her. Then because her virtue is impeccable, she and/or her lawyers went to the press with her lawsuit to maximize any sense of scandal. It’s gotta be the fault of that mean old Church. Poor dear girl. One still has to wonder at the actual nature of her connection to the Church and its teachings prior to her firing.

Silly statement not worth responding to.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Is it at least clear to you, Mister Jim, that the Church did not throw her out (despite your notes of drama and hysteria)? She was fired by one Catholic school for breaking her contract.

My understanding, without having to go through all the threads looking for it, is that this is a diocessan school, and the dioceses supported the decision.

With that, I rest my case.

Jim