Reading this made me so angry, I'm fighting tears. Faith, I'm so sorry. What a horrid thing to say. Do people go to camps or something to learn how to say the most caustic thing possible to a grieving mom??

I have to say it. WTH is wrong with those people?? How...?? WHAT LOGIC lends itself to accusing you (and Sadie) like that? Because that is outrageous, and frankly if some said that to a friend of mine in my hearing, I would have hit them. Don't think I wouldn't either. I'm a hockey mom. I wish your dd could put snakes in their beds. Seriously am pissed off for you.

Ah, ok, that makes sense. Why'd they have to kill the poor lambs though? :(

ITA. I guess as with anything, there will be winners and losers. I do strongly support development of A.W. tech for cases like what Moxie and MedicMom shared. To save lives. Not so sure about the implications of extending its use to elective applications in the future, that could involve the gratuitous severance of the maternal-fetal bond to attain total oversight and control of the process.

Maybe they mean 4 weeks in the A.W. (artificial womb) and then transferred to an incubator for a bit? 28 weeks is still early. Perhaps the stress of early delivery would speed up the maturation process.

Sadie, that's terrible. I always thought that every abortion represents a societal failure - socially, economically - and the women get blamed for making the hard choices that many people just cannot fathom. It's easy to say "Murderer!" but forget that callous, backward policies and indifference to humanity that is already born, is what stacks the odds against women. That said, as a pro-choice person, I'd hope most pro-life people here would not agree to naming you a murderer. I'd be shocked if that was the case! Most ones I know seem to regard women who have had abortions as victims themselves.

That's a good way to frame it.

Moxie, discussing possible issues down the road does not mean there's no interim benefits. C-sections were novel at one time but have saved countless lives. I'm grateful for the option, even though some women have been court mandated and held down to have them performed. I want the technology to be developed for the good it will do. Even I didn't want it, it's still inevitable I believe. But does that mean we shouldn't investigate some of the possible negatives that may also result? Ectogenesis is a possible (far off, still distant) outcome of today's limited artificial womb support systems. That's why I'm talking about, not because I don't want the technology. Like I prefer cars to horse drawn carriages, despite the problems.

I think most forms of abortion would just become outdated, like maybe horse drawn carriage accidents became less of a public health issue after the advent of the automobile. We "solved" one issue but replaced it with a new version. I'm pro-choice in the European sense. Should be done before 12 weeks, excepting health and serious birth defects, etc. Not a fan overall of the process, because it denies a very early developing human life, and I find that sad. A waste of human potential. But, I also think that the use of her body as life support for another human, should be a voluntary undertaking. So, abortion seems to me a necessary evil, so to speak. And I think that the ones who make the choice also will bear the consequences either way, and they should not be denied that right. That's to say, I see the issue as a question of imminent domain. To me, the technology would potentially solve this dilemma between competing interests, but would introduce new issues in its place. Total ectogenesis would likely take human reproduction to a new form of human trafficking. Why leave gestation to chance, where injuries, illness, environmental toxins can occur? Why incur health hazards for the mother? Of the child is to be gestated artificially, why risk the hazardous genetic odds of natural conception? Have gametes sifted through, matched, injected into the third party's egg (mitochondrial disease free), cultured in a Petri dish, and then geneticall analyzes again before being implanted into an artificial womb. People who have their kids naturally will be pitied or despised, for their selfish risky behaviors that cause children to be born defective. Just speculating, but this is one possible outcome.

Excuse me? Knock what off? I am debating you with regards to what you, yourself, have said. I haven't called you names, nor even come close. Critizing your judgment in this situation, and how you present your arguments is entirely fair. Especially as you haven't held back on your judgments on everyone else's motivations. Asking how you reached a judgement about a stranger's whole character is entirely fair. Because you put it out there. Do not accuse me of breaking board rules or somehow forcing you to break them, because I challenged your statements. I expected return challenges and a defense or clarification in response, not name calling or baseless charges.

Public is just as bad, because politics. No school administrators get their jobs without someone having an angle somehow. They know the right people, the have the right network, they say the right things to the right people. Kiss the right behinds. Deb was conflicted about the situation and we understand that. Was she even offered the job? We don't know, and we also don't know if the hiring manager had his own person in mind. It would be nice if she came back with an update. Hopefully, it all worked out for her.

Sharing interview questions ahead of the interview is entirely common. At least in the professional sphere. Where I work, we even have a whole format and process that we are trained to follow. Outside interviewees don't have that prep, but those of us already hired do. On a regular basis, in company paid for trainings. My husband recently interviewed for a job, and a friend who works there advised him what kind of questions to expect. Nobody thought it weird or suspicious that he came prepared. Employees are encouraged to head hunt and to share such info there. I'd argue that coming to an interview without googling the company, and at a minimum, looking at Glassdoor, which frequently shares interview questions and processes, is actually likely to make you look ill prepared. Companies do their background research on you; to go in without doing your own research doesn't make you look morally superior. It makes you look unprepared and unresourceful. Has it occurred to you that many companies expect and want people to have prepared answers to these questions? And in fact is why they do go not generally around suing and firing current and past employees for sharing such info? But I don't think this really has anything to do with interview questions being shared. It is about your desire to punish a stranger for doing something that you think was wrong. So you basically call her amoral, like she's got no conscience. Feel free to judge her one action. But I really don't know where you get off judging her entire character like that. Most people are pretty complex. I can disagree with her action and think, well she was trying to help. Which means she is looking out for a friend. So, she's got at least one redeeming quality.

So the secretary is now considered an amoral agent? Or just those of us who wouldn't try to seek retribution against her for a common, almost mundane, action?

Good for you. So sad that others out there are all too lazy and too concerned with expedience to mimic your personal diligence against workplace nepotism and favoritism. I have always favored the "treat others respectfully and with fairness" approach myself. But I have never took it upon myself to enforce the same among my peers.

Or she deals with a scrupulous conscience. I don't agree with the harsh judgements of Deb, the secretary, or really anyone here. I've repeatedly said I hope for a resolution that Deb can abide, ethically speaking. But, I don't particularly appreciate the charge that because I wouldn't throw the secretary under the bus, or write letters even hinting at implicating her, I must be morally inferior. One can maintain a high standard of ethics while seeking to avoid the appearance of posturing or "virtue signalling." It's not an either/ or proposition.

MedicMom, I am so sorry. I also think this could make a huge difference in the lives of early preemies. Could save lives and prevent serious disabilities caused by premature birth.

Maize, I agree it cannot replicate a natural intrauterine experience, because it's really categorically different, hence why the change in terminology. Emergence versus birth. From what I've read, the technology for total ectogenesis - what scientists are calling it - is still decades away. Not imminent, but appears to be inevitable in some manner. Frankly, I'm interested in just how the immunological development would take place, given the sophisticated exchange between maternal and fetal systems. That's the science side of me. The bigger questions to me are philosophical. I've heard some feminists (mostly second wave) predict that males will become obsolete. With this tech, I could actually see the reverse happening - females are no longer needed. One more step to the end of sexual dimorphism. Here's another article that discusses several possible developments, though it was written last year. At that time, it claimed no one was working on artificial womb technology, but I guess that may not be the case now. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/06/artificial-uterus-close-reality/amp/ .

Makes me wonder about the implications of generations of children being gestated from conception to...emergence? It's not really being "born" as such. How would such a generation relate to wisdom and scriptures - from all religions - that relate spirital concepts like "rebirth" and being "born again" when they have no more reference? I suspect it would also relegate child bearing to something only "poor" and disadvantaged women do. Particularly when we attain singularity.

Apologies for the title, lol. Saw this in yesterday's news feed: CHOP has been developing and testing an artificial uterus. Curious as to others' thoughts on this, as I find the prospect both fascinating and daunting. Web address: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/25/525044286/scientists-create-artificial-womb-that-could-help-prematurely-born-babies

Good grief right back at ya. Why the hostility? You are characterizing the situation as some sort of mean spirited act by the secretary. The way Deb described the situation did not stike me that way. More like she bent the rules in a misguided attempt to help Deb. You aren't alone in judging the secretary's act to be unethical, but the tone of your post strikes me as pretty harsh and even resentful. Do you think the secretary was operating out of malice? And "normalizing" such tactics? As if this is a recent development in the public and professional sphere? Au contraire, Madame. This is how it's always been in the cutthroat world of business. "Old boys' network" is not a new invention. Several decades ago, you and I wouldn't have even made it to the interview in many male dominated fields. Point being, the field has always been uneven. Life's not fair. I do think that it sucks. But trying to castigate every instance of it would be a bit like tilting at windmills. You gotta pick your battles. Acknowledging that does not mean one has to like how the game is played. But human nature is clannish and always has been. People tend to trust what they know versus what is unknown. Anyway, I say all this not to argue with you, but to point out that this kind of behavior is really so endemic, it's just par for the course. And that's why I'm not inclined to rake a very minor player, such as the secretary, over the coals. What she did was, relatively speaking, hardly significant compared to some of the scheming and plotting I've witnessed. But I also understand conflicts of personal conscience. I hope Deb was able to make a decision that lets her move forward without regret.

"Jar of Hearts" by Christina Perri "Thank U" by Alanis Morrisette

I believe about $100 less than a Samsung S7 or a new iPhone. It's certainly pricier than some others but my rec was based on what's the best phone and OS out there. A lot of folks like Apple because its software and hardware are designed by the same company, so its a seamless fit. They also like the functionality of Siri. The Google Pixel is Google's answer to that - Android being Google's own OS, and the phone, itself, designed specifically by Google. And Google Assist on the Pixel is beyond incredible. Its far more sophisticated than Siri in that it's actually like a form of AI - it "learns" and adjusts as it goes.

If you have Verizon, hands down the best phone is the Google Pixel.

And yet, if she was running a lawn mowing or detailing cars or something similar, I bet she'd be offered quite a bit more. Or maybe not - she is female, so...

Precisely.