As someone who became a Dad at 50 I would argue with you that it's not the worst thing in the world. Generally I would agree with you though that I don't think younger people should aim to be putting their lives on hold for a career. And there's no doubt in my mind that a younger parent is a better target. This is mostly Apple wanting to make a PC statement.
I hope my words did not sound as a judgment of people, who like you, ended up having kids a bit late. I'm not judging, just expressing a mathematical statement ^^
I think the idea is dumb if the purpose is to encourage more female employees in the company.
Why not just let their female employees be told that getting pregnant will not hurt their careers while the company invests in daycare and parent support of any kind?
In addition, if you're going to freeze eggs then freeze the husband's sperm too.
This perk is way too geeky and lacks true organic family building. You probably have to consider who are the CEOs of Facebook and Apple to make any sense of this.
In the meantime, Ubisoft, in Montreal, offers benefits for families of their employees. I have no clue if these are any good, but I noted it for future reference ^^
[quote name="Rogifan" url="/t/182800/apple-to-pay-female-employees-up-to-20-000-for-new-egg-freezing-fertility-benefit#post_2619252"]Because I think people having children later in life is selfish[/QUOTE]
How so? Typically having children a little later in life means you're more intelligent, mature, stable, and more financially secure. What is selfish about waiting until your 30s?
[QUOTE](and in some cases can have health risks).[/QUOTE]
Again, how so? We're not talking about a woman's eggs late in life but young, healthy eggs. It seems like the best possible scenario and I expect it to become more common. Save those eggs when you're young and then have the children when you're ready.
There is also some reports that older sperm isn't as good as younger sperm so we may eventually see this become a fairly common practice for men, but so far it seems that older eggs are where the majority of the health risk are.
So basically, we're now giving women the opportunity to do that WRONG thing that men have a physiological capability to do, make babies at an age where they're likely to not be healthy enough to take them into adulthood with all their educative abilities?
Think of becoming a father at 50. That's getting your kid to adulthood around 70.
Why the hell would that be a good thing for women either?
I wish big companies with lots of cash would instead help foster long-term perspectives of families/single parents, in order to allow young people to start a family longer rather than having to try and build a career. This is a clear case of using science to solve a consequence rather than a cause.
How about we leave it up to the women to decide what is right and wrong for their lives?
To the naysayers, I'd argue that it's about giving people a choice as to when they want to have a family.
That said, I do agree that those who choose to have a family earlier in life should also be given an option for daycare services and facilities to get back to a more work/life balanced career later on. It should work both ways and not be biased towards life choices which also happen to be more beneficial for the employer.
How about we leave it up to the women to decide what is right and wrong for their lives?
Sounds exactly like the reasoning of people advocating for biological engineering for their offspring.
Thankfully, until now, the State, which means, the collective wisdom of humans (hopefully, at least) has decided that unless there is serious medical benefits (solving a potential genetic illness), we're not going to play around with biological engineering.
My opinion, worth exactly that and no more, but no less, is that we're having an identical moral conundrum here.
Are "the women" (who may potentially be influenced by family or social pressure) the best people to decide, or should medical peers, or should legislators?
I'm not bringing a solution, but I do believe there is a complicated question there.
Also, in the end, no rule is done for "the women" or "the men". Rules are done for the benefit of the People, which is made up of men and women, as well as other types of people (if we're going this way, let's not forget anyone). Is a world where kids enjoy only 20 to 30 years of their parents's presence something beneficial to society? It seems like a social regression to me. My point, all in all, is double: first, rules are made for the good of the whole of society, not a particular subset (at least if they're done right), and second, leaving "women" or "men" or anyone totally free to choose is not a choice humans have made. Have you noticed that not everyone can drive a car, that planes are not landing where it pleases the pilot, that hard drugs are illegal almost everywhere apart from very strict medical situations? We don't let people decide what is right and wrong in these situations. I may be missing something huge, but it seems to me babies, being the future of society, are on the grand scheme of things way more important than the occasional use of hard drugs, a Cessna landing on the Red Square or people deciding for themselves if driving is something they should do. Therefore, it should not be "women", but "society" that rules on this issue.
However, I'm just human, and I'm possibly entirely wrong on this.
An education starts being useful from day 1, actually.
In some philosophical way, sure, but if you are getting any degree or trade you usually have to spend a lot of time and money to get to a goal before you can a job utilizing that skill at a wage that can pay back the expense. Since you can die at any point your implication holds.
Why have an issue with someone planning ahead. If they decide not to use those eggs what's the big deal?
"And since a man can't make one, he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one." —Tupac Shakur
This is a bit of a dishonest argument, though. It raises one question: should we devote substantial resources to enabling men to have babies, in order to remove this unfair advantage of women over men?
After all, it's like being born a Prince. By birth, you have a natural right to decide "when and where" to make babies.
I'm for generic screening for severe defects, stem cell research, contraception, euthanasia and measures for population growth control.
I'm agreeing with all but the last one. Population Growth Control, in my opinion, leads to a natural question (who is allowed to make babies) with a logical answer, high potential humans, based on someone's calculation of who is high potential. This is called "eugenism", and in turn leads to the quest for the übermensch. It's one of my pet peeves ^^
This is a bit of a dishonest argument, though. It raises one question: <span style="line-height:1.4em;"> should we devote substantial resources to enabling men to have babies, in order to remove this unfair advantage of women over men?</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">After all, it's like being born a Prince. By </span>
birth<span style="line-height:1.4em;">, you have a natural right to decide "when and where" to make babies. </span>
I have zero idea what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying it's unfair that women shouldn't be able to decide when and where their bodies can be used as a host for new offspring without men being able to say what is right for them.
In some philosophical way, sure, but if you are getting any degree or trade you usually have to spend a lot of time and money to get to a goal before you can a job utilizing that skill at a wage that can pay back the expense. Since you can die at any point your implication holds.
Why have an issue with someone planning ahead. If they decide not to use those eggs what's the big deal?
OK, I understand your point of course, even though some of the tools I use most often are the ones I learnt almost at he beginning of my studies.
As for the big deal, my problem lies with the use, not with the lack of use. Until we have a much longer lifespan, having kids later will statistically increase the danger faced by women and decrease the lifetime of parents with their children, which penalises kids in the general picture.
Did you know that after 30, the risk of miscarriage doubles every 5 years? I found that out reading medical research with my girl while calculating the best career path for her ^^
Of course, this is a way too complex issue to be solved on AppleInsider Forums, but it feels to me Apple is doing PR here more than real gender-equality. If they wanted to really help, they'd make sure women's careers aren't impacted by having children,rather than this.
Apple has the power to push the legislator to make things like "make every month spent carrying kids where you were physically unable to work count as worked months for retirement", for example, in any country where they have employees or subsidiaries. This, they're not even trying to achieve.
This concept is silly and to make it "equal" should it not apply to the spouses of the male employees too?
Obviously making iphones and in particular having them made by women is a bigger priority than raising children.
This is just simply a form of greed, not equality.
5 billion years of evolution apparently can't be trusted to ensure that we are built the way we are for a REASON. This is simply teliology.
Why do "believe in evolution" but don't think it actually applies to them. In either case modern science, tech, and medicine is already affecting evolution. I hope un-natural selection does a better job than natural selection otherwise we are SCREWED down the line. These are all indirect methods of altering human breeding and are in essence a form of eugenics.
Wait until a genetically engineered artifical cloned womb can be made. Assume you could make such a thing, would women be "equal to men" then? Why bear children at all when it will stifle your career.
Making iphones and money are apparently more important in the opportunity cost equation.
This is simply deranged thinking. Apple can simply pay ALL their employees $20k extra a year so at least it would be fair... And then STAY OUT OF THE PREGNANCY MANAGEMENT BUSINESD.
I'm agreeing with all but the last one. Population Growth Control, in my opinion, leads to a natural question (who is allowed to make babies) with a logical answer, high potential humans, based on someone's calculation of who is high potential. This is called "eugenism", and in turn leads to the quest for the übermensch. It's one of my pet peeves ^^
Without population growth occurring in some way our species dies on this rock because resources are limited. Based on current technological abilities about 4 billion is the ideal for creating a long term homeostasis. I'm sure we'll increase efficiently to increase that number but all signs point to the population of the world growing much too faster to ever catch up with the current progress of technology.
Comments
As someone who became a Dad at 50 I would argue with you that it's not the worst thing in the world. Generally I would agree with you though that I don't think younger people should aim to be putting their lives on hold for a career. And there's no doubt in my mind that a younger parent is a better target. This is mostly Apple wanting to make a PC statement.
I hope my words did not sound as a judgment of people, who like you, ended up having kids a bit late. I'm not judging, just expressing a mathematical statement ^^
I think the idea is dumb if the purpose is to encourage more female employees in the company.
Why not just let their female employees be told that getting pregnant will not hurt their careers while the company invests in daycare and parent support of any kind?
In addition, if you're going to freeze eggs then freeze the husband's sperm too.
This perk is way too geeky and lacks true organic family building. You probably have to consider who are the CEOs of Facebook and Apple to make any sense of this.
In the meantime, Ubisoft, in Montreal, offers benefits for families of their employees. I have no clue if these are any good, but I noted it for future reference ^^
How so? Typically having children a little later in life means you're more intelligent, mature, stable, and more financially secure. What is selfish about waiting until your 30s?
[QUOTE](and in some cases can have health risks).[/QUOTE]
Again, how so? We're not talking about a woman's eggs late in life but young, healthy eggs. It seems like the best possible scenario and I expect it to become more common. Save those eggs when you're young and then have the children when you're ready.
There is also some reports that older sperm isn't as good as younger sperm so we may eventually see this become a fairly common practice for men, but so far it seems that older eggs are where the majority of the health risk are.
How do you know you'll even live long enough to take advantage of those frozen eggs?
But only for those who want hermaphrodites as children since they want a "no comprise" solution like their MS Surface.
(My apologies to actual hermaphrodites if that sounds offensive)
I don't understand your questions. You might as well ask: Why get an education if you don't know if you'll live long enough to take advantage it?
I don't understand your questions. You might as well ask: Why get an education if you don't know if you'll live long enough to take advantage it?
An education starts being useful from day 1, actually.
How about we leave it up to the women to decide what is right and wrong for their lives?
To the naysayers, I'd argue that it's about giving people a choice as to when they want to have a family.
That said, I do agree that those who choose to have a family earlier in life should also be given an option for daycare services and facilities to get back to a more work/life balanced career later on. It should work both ways and not be biased towards life choices which also happen to be more beneficial for the employer.
How about we leave it up to the women to decide what is right and wrong for their lives?
Sounds exactly like the reasoning of people advocating for biological engineering for their offspring.
Thankfully, until now, the State, which means, the collective wisdom of humans (hopefully, at least) has decided that unless there is serious medical benefits (solving a potential genetic illness), we're not going to play around with biological engineering.
My opinion, worth exactly that and no more, but no less, is that we're having an identical moral conundrum here.
Are "the women" (who may potentially be influenced by family or social pressure) the best people to decide, or should medical peers, or should legislators?
I'm not bringing a solution, but I do believe there is a complicated question there.
Also, in the end, no rule is done for "the women" or "the men". Rules are done for the benefit of the People, which is made up of men and women, as well as other types of people (if we're going this way, let's not forget anyone). Is a world where kids enjoy only 20 to 30 years of their parents's presence something beneficial to society? It seems like a social regression to me. My point, all in all, is double: first, rules are made for the good of the whole of society, not a particular subset (at least if they're done right), and second, leaving "women" or "men" or anyone totally free to choose is not a choice humans have made. Have you noticed that not everyone can drive a car, that planes are not landing where it pleases the pilot, that hard drugs are illegal almost everywhere apart from very strict medical situations? We don't let people decide what is right and wrong in these situations. I may be missing something huge, but it seems to me babies, being the future of society, are on the grand scheme of things way more important than the occasional use of hard drugs, a Cessna landing on the Red Square or people deciding for themselves if driving is something they should do. Therefore, it should not be "women", but "society" that rules on this issue.
However, I'm just human, and I'm possibly entirely wrong on this.
In some philosophical way, sure, but if you are getting any degree or trade you usually have to spend a lot of time and money to get to a goal before you can a job utilizing that skill at a wage that can pay back the expense. Since you can die at any point your implication holds.
Why have an issue with someone planning ahead. If they decide not to use those eggs what's the big deal?
"And since a man can't make one, he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one." —Tupac Shakur
[VIDEO]
I'm for generic screening for severe defects, stem cell research, contraception, euthanasia and measures for population growth control.
"And since a man can't make one, he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one." —Tupac Shakur
This is a bit of a dishonest argument, though. It raises one question: should we devote substantial resources to enabling men to have babies, in order to remove this unfair advantage of women over men?
After all, it's like being born a Prince. By birth, you have a natural right to decide "when and where" to make babies.
I'm for generic screening for severe defects, stem cell research, contraception, euthanasia and measures for population growth control.
I'm agreeing with all but the last one. Population Growth Control, in my opinion, leads to a natural question (who is allowed to make babies) with a logical answer, high potential humans, based on someone's calculation of who is high potential. This is called "eugenism", and in turn leads to the quest for the übermensch. It's one of my pet peeves ^^
I have zero idea what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying it's unfair that women shouldn't be able to decide when and where their bodies can be used as a host for new offspring without men being able to say what is right for them.
In some philosophical way, sure, but if you are getting any degree or trade you usually have to spend a lot of time and money to get to a goal before you can a job utilizing that skill at a wage that can pay back the expense. Since you can die at any point your implication holds.
Why have an issue with someone planning ahead. If they decide not to use those eggs what's the big deal?
OK, I understand your point of course, even though some of the tools I use most often are the ones I learnt almost at he beginning of my studies.
As for the big deal, my problem lies with the use, not with the lack of use. Until we have a much longer lifespan, having kids later will statistically increase the danger faced by women and decrease the lifetime of parents with their children, which penalises kids in the general picture.
Did you know that after 30, the risk of miscarriage doubles every 5 years? I found that out reading medical research with my girl while calculating the best career path for her ^^
Of course, this is a way too complex issue to be solved on AppleInsider Forums, but it feels to me Apple is doing PR here more than real gender-equality. If they wanted to really help, they'd make sure women's careers aren't impacted by having children,rather than this.
Apple has the power to push the legislator to make things like "make every month spent carrying kids where you were physically unable to work count as worked months for retirement", for example, in any country where they have employees or subsidiaries. This, they're not even trying to achieve.
Obviously making iphones and in particular having them made by women is a bigger priority than raising children.
This is just simply a form of greed, not equality.
5 billion years of evolution apparently can't be trusted to ensure that we are built the way we are for a REASON. This is simply teliology.
Why do "believe in evolution" but don't think it actually applies to them. In either case modern science, tech, and medicine is already affecting evolution. I hope un-natural selection does a better job than natural selection otherwise we are SCREWED down the line. These are all indirect methods of altering human breeding and are in essence a form of eugenics.
Wait until a genetically engineered artifical cloned womb can be made. Assume you could make such a thing, would women be "equal to men" then? Why bear children at all when it will stifle your career.
Making iphones and money are apparently more important in the opportunity cost equation.
This is simply deranged thinking. Apple can simply pay ALL their employees $20k extra a year so at least it would be fair... And then STAY OUT OF THE PREGNANCY MANAGEMENT BUSINESD.
Without population growth occurring in some way our species dies on this rock because resources are limited. Based on current technological abilities about 4 billion is the ideal for creating a long term homeostasis. I'm sure we'll increase efficiently to increase that number but all signs point to the population of the world growing much too faster to ever catch up with the current progress of technology.