Cary is totally right. Your new family is now your highest priority. Due to new circumstances, it's necessary to cut your commitment short. But in this case, if your boss doesn't understand, that's her problem, not yours. Be happy!

Several points to add here, one of which is contingent on circumstances, two of which are not.

First, there is the long term to think of. LetterWriter indicates that she does want to re-engage her career -- or at least re-enter the work-force -- at some point in the future. Doing so is tough enough for returning mothers -- we've all seen the stats, including right here at Salon. Won't make it any easier to have a time-bomb waiting to go off in the resume.

Second, one's word does mean something -- at least it should, and it is to LW's credit that she is thinking along those lines. And attached to this is the third issue -- the impact it will have on the boss, the other staffers, and the enterprise itself.

If the organization and the boss have made it clear through their behaviors in the past that employment there is "at will," and that they do not take very seriously their responsibilities to their employees, that makes a unilateral move such as Cary suggests much more defensible. But if they have behaved responsibly in the labor market -- if they have, for instance, made efforts to keep employed people whose specific tasks had been made redundant, or anything at all like that -- that is a very different matter. It also matters how important LW's job is in the enterprise, and how quick and easy it would be to replace her with someone equally qualified.

What I might suggest, depending on the answers to those questions, is that LW consider offering some compromise positions -- at the very least, for example, being willing to leave her job earlier than she otherwise might have wanted, if that will make it easier to fill the spot. Or making her departure date contingent on exactly when a replacement of equal capacity can be found -- and agreeing to stay on while training the replacement. Or agreeing to take on some part-time or work-from-home responsiblities for some time after the birth of the child (after the necessary break of course), if that were possible.

Some of these options, and others that I'm sure LW could come up with, might go a long way toward making LW's position more ethically defensible -- and ultimately redound to her own benefit when it comes time to re-enter the full-time working world, if she winds up wanting to do so. (As LW knows only too well -- things change.)

And yes, I am an employer -- one who works very hard to fulfill my moral responsibilities to those people who have made the choice to work for my firm, and one who has been burned several times in the past (fortunately, rarely) by indivduals who did not take their accepted, committed responsibilities as seriously as they might have.

Ooh, tee-hee! I was already figuring I would break my promise to my employer by leaving after a year-and-a-half instead of the two years I promised...

("I promised my new boss I'd stay two years and figured -- since she'd seen me working my butt off -- that I could probably get away with leaving (and leaving pregnant) after a year and a half if I wanted to.")

But then we got another source of income...

("But the husband gets this fabulous grant...we can finally afford to have me freelance and stay home with a kid.")

And then after talking about how now the only reason for me to work was for somebody else's benefit, and how it would not fulfill any of our own selfish needs (tee-hee!)

("we're talking about how we can finally afford to have me freelance and stay home with a kid....I had unprotected sex for the first and only time in my life")

Hee hee hee! Even though my whole life I've been rigorously careful about using protection at times when getting pregnant would inconvenience ME, somehow this night hee hee I didn't use it!

Look, I actually agree with everyone who says congratulations, and family comes first, and it's great how this all worked out for you.

But I also feel, just as strongly - FUCKING TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. And furthermore, it would be good if you could adopt this worldview - taking responsibility for your own actions in all things - BEFORE your child is born.

In other circumstances, telling your boss that you won't be fulfilling an important promise calls for some kind of apology/acknowledgement from an honorable person - why should a pregnancy be different?

Naturally, you are not sorry for the pregnacy, but showing an understanding of the difficulties caused by your situation would be appropriate, and undoubtedly appreciated. Considering that the LW hopes to retain a good reputation, a sincere effort to show that she is aware of the downside for her boss seems not just the right thing to do, but the smart one.

Naturally, this effort to make the situation as simple and painless as possible for her boss will go a long way toward easing the transition for all - and will show her to be an honorable professional worthy of future consideration from employers.

There is no way on god's green earth that the woman should apologize for being pregnant, and there is no reason that she shouldn't leave to raise her child.

It doesn't sound like she has a contract (which might change things) - she's employed at-will, and therefore under no obligation to stay with an employer if her situation has changed. How many companies can you think of that would guarantee 2 years of employment and keep to it if there was an unfortunate change in the market? I'm sure many of you Salon readers have lived through the layoffs of 2001-2002. If it became inconvenient for this woman's boss to keep her as an employee, she'd be gone in a second. Companies don't bend over backwards for their employees anymore, so there's no reason employees should do the same.

Say you're sorry you have to leave early, but leave.