Christian college fires woman for not getting abortion

San Diego Christian College allegedly fired an employee for not getting an abortion.

The school says its “community covenant” forbids employees from having extramarital sex, but the school also seems to want everyone to know it doesn’t actually care about that.

See, what happened was an unmarried employee of San Diego Christian turned up pregnant, so they fired her, allegedly for violating the “community covenant.”

But then they allegedly offered her old job to her fiancé – the expectant father-to-be.

So if a woman has sex and gets pregnant, SDCC says she must be fired, because people can see that. But if a man has sex and gets his girlfriend pregnant, that’s fine, because penis.

If this woman had gotten an abortion, she’d still have her job. That’s what San Diego Christian College apparently wanted her to do. That’s certainly the incentive they’ve built into their “community covenant.” And that incentive is doubly reinforced by the double-standard in how that “covenant” is enforced for women as opposed to for men.

The lesson here is to be careful taking a job with those “pro-life” Christian types. They really mean it when they say they’re not pro-choice. They’ll fire you for choosing not to get an abortion.

It’s fascinating to contrast the Feministing post linked above with the coverage of the same story from Christianity Today.

Feministing understands the key to the story:

The real kicker here is that the very same school that fired [the employee] once she became visibly preggers, offered a job to her then fiancé (the two are now married and he said no) who was, presumably, engaging in the very same premarital sex.

Christianity Today chose not to notice that. They focus, instead, on the fact that the former employee is being represented by “high-profile lawyer Gloria Allred.”

CT readers are expected to boo and hiss at the mention of Allred’s name. Hence the title of the CT piece, “Gloria Allred’s Latest Target: Christian College That Fired Pregnant Employee.” She’s one of those feminists, you know, and it’s always “Target: Christian” with those people.

CT’s reflexive anti-feminism leads them to side against Allred and her ideas about women having the right to control their own bodies. And so, just like San Diego Christian College, CT ends up siding against a woman due to her choosing not to have an abortion.

Given the chance to choose between “saving babies” and controlling women, both the magazine and the college instinctively opt for controlling women.

Women who have sex must be punished. Men who have sex — the very same sex — can be rewarded.

And what about all that “saving babies” business? Meh, whatever — as long as the women who have sex get punished, that really doesn’t seem to matter to these folks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/turophile23 Peter Hardy

    LOL

  • http://www.facebook.com/turophile23 Peter Hardy

    My first example did.

  • http://www.facebook.com/turophile23 Peter Hardy

    I never said that zygotes were persons (whatever that means). My position is that foetuses, just like babies and toddlers, are children. Science says they are human beings with minds as well bodies and unless you’re some kind of loony creationist I don’t see how you can disagree with that.

    I’m not interested in convincing anyone here that abortion is wrong. For that they should read a few books on each side of the debate and make up their own mind. I was merely pointing out how ridiculously illogical both the premise/headline of this article and Lori’s argument that men aren’t allowed to have views on abortion are. Indeed, the article was written by a man and no one seems to have a problem with that.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Actually, what science tells us is that a fetus is a developing viviparous vertebrate between the stages of embryo and birth, and that the mind of a fetus is still in its most primitive state, largely incapable of any form of awareness beyond the instinctual.

    The distinction “is it a person or not” refers to the capacity for independent thought and function and thus is a marker for value. Someone in a state of brain death has less value, objectively speaking, than someone in a functional state (even if they require machine assistance) — if you had to choose who would receive an organ transplant, obviously you wouldn’t spend a critical resource on someone incapable of making any use of it.

    How this relates to fetuses is the concept that until later stages of development (when even a premature birth would be deemed viable), a fetus is fully dependent on the body in which it resides. Pregnancy places significant stress on the body, forcing organs to work harder, nutrients to be divided among two bodies, and increasing the likelihood of developing high blood pressure, anemia and heart conditions. Even after giving birth, many of these conditions can remain for some time or even become permanent. In essence, the existing person gives up many resources for biological matter which has not yet demonstrated any value as a person.

    This sacrifice cannot be understated. Even in the United States, a not-insignificant number of women (and transsexual men) die in child birth every year or suffer lasting health complications which impair their ability to function or even jeopardize their lives well after birth. Even assuming their health remains strong and recovers quickly after giving birth, then they give up time and money in the raising of the child (which many, if not most societies deem to be the primary duty of the one who gives birth). Many employers think nothing of outright firing pregnant employees, and even those who provide maternity leave do so with significantly lessened or even no paid leave.

    The act of forcing a pregnancy to continue until birth means forcing a person to risk their health, livelihood and future for the sake of the resulting child, which they may not even want.

    This ties into why it’s objectionable for a man to weigh in on abortion as immoral, because he does so with (in all likelihood not being a transsexual man) no risk of ever contracting this condition himself. It literally isn’t a position he will ever have to worry about. It shouldn’t need explaining why it raises objections for a man to make the decision that a woman should sacrifice so much for something he may not even have to deal with (many men walk away from pregnancy without even ending up paying child support). In the end, it’s her body, health, livelihood and future that are at risk and no one should have the power to compel her to risk them, much less someone from such a state of privilege and safety.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X