We would argue that the right to play belongs to the woman at least up to the 14th week unless it would injure the health of the woman. Up until at least that point, the right of the woman over her body should not be violated.
We feel that this case could be viewed as a question of rights, whether the rights of the mother and athlete prevail over the rights of the college to prohibit the woman from playing, the rights of the fetus, and the rights of the athletes team. Although the case could be viewed from this standpoint we feel that it is nearly impossible to determine whose rights are more important in this situation and have chosen to view the case from a purely consequentialist standpoint. We feel that overwhelmingly by following this line of thought the ethical choice would be to allow the woman to play until the end of her first 14 weeks of pregnancy, or until her doctor sees fit, based on the intensity of the sport and that during her absence her scholarships ought not to be removed and in general she ought to receive a red shirt and therefore be allowed to play an extra year.
It is also important to note that Title IX does state that a college "shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery there from...." The regulations also indicate that pregnancy should be treated like any other "temporary disability," and that pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery is "a justification for a leave of absence... at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status which she held when the leave began."
We think that removing the athlete from the team and rescinding her scholarships will cause more damage to not only those immediately involved but society as a whole than keeping her on the team. NCAA notes that it is safe for a woman to continue to play college sports until the end of 14 weeks a doctor is also able to determine based on the level of sport whether or not this is safe.
We recognize that a lapse of judgment on the athletes part ought not to be rewarded, if an athlete were to suffer a lapse in judgment and use drugs or get drunk the night before a big game and were thus unable to participate they should not be allowed to play and if this were to occur on a recurring basis then the athlete would be on the path to losing their scholarship for repeated misdemeanors. We feel that the difference with a pregnant athlete is that a one time lapse in judgment or even failed protection can result in consequences which last a lifetime. Even the careless athlete who becomes pregnant is very unlikely to repeat the act because they will go through many difficulties as a result of their one moment of carelessness. Therefore it is ultimately ethical to allow the athlete to continue to play until the 14th week. While there are detrimental effects to the college who may risk liability and image and a limited possibility of harming the fetus we feel that these effects are outweighed by the consequences if an athlete is removed from the team entirely and loses their scholarship. These effects will have lifelong consequences for the mother, the mother’s family, the child, and the child’s future children.
As of 2008 the mean income for a woman who did not graduate high school was about 22,000 for a woman who completes college this goes up to 40,000. Men make approximately 15,000 more in each category. Pregnant women, especially at a younger age, often have no contact with the fathers of their children and may often not receive child support. In 2008 the poverty line for a family of one parent and one child was set at $15,000. This is very close to the income of an individual who has not completed college or high school, especially considering single mothers will find it difficult to work.
Children of single low in come mothers spend a significant amount of time in childcare, the quality of this care effects the child’s development. Children in low income families tend to do worse on tests and have a lower graduation rate of both high school and college. A study conducted by the university of California Berkley found that the difference in the prefrontal cortex(part that does problem solving) between children of low income and high income families was the same level of difference as found between people who have had a stroke and people who have not. By the age of 3 a middle class child has twice the vocabulary as a poor child. A poor family is more unlikely to buy processed, inexpensive, and unhealthy foods resulting in obesity and malnutrition. A lower income family is also unable to provide the same medical care as a higher income family. A lower income child is also far more likely to remain within that bracket and become a low income parent earlier in life. In 2010 the federal government spent $500 billion dollars on welfare (child support, food assistance, medical assistance etc). In comparison U.S. colleges spend about $620 million on female athletic scholarships each one ranging from only 5,000 per year to an occasional full ride. College departments experience a pregnancy with about 10 to 15 percent of their athletes. The NCAA states that it is safe to continue a sport throughout the first trimester. It may in some way create resentment by the mother towards the child and reduce her ability to care for it properly. 