Hardly. It is not as much of a choice as you might think. There is a very narrow window in which a female is ripe and in best physical health for both child birth and child rearing. They don't simply get to choose what phase of life that is.
But the corporate driven culture that women should stop caring about their family responsibilities and care more about themselves instead is a disgusting anti-human joke that needs to be stopped.
Thanks for your views, Adolph Hitler, Jr.
I have a strong suspicion that you have a lot of trouble communicating with or are afraid of women, thus the desire to control them.
These views are extremely immature.
It's not dictatorial to impose limitations on people for their own good. It's not oppressive to suggest that a woman can't abort her child except under special circumstances during her 3rd trimester as that's killing almost a fully formed child. There were polls done where ~10% of the people asked said even the 3rd trimester (6-9months) was ok:
They hit menopause - the end of their ability to conceive naturally - in their late 40s/early 50s. It's not essential to have a child aged 20-35 but as far as the biology is concerned, it is recommended.
That's not to say it can't work out ok later on. Marissa Mayer had her first child at 37, Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO) had her first child at 36 and second at 38 but it has the same effect on their work as it would if they were young:
Mayer cancelled the work from home policy because people were slacking off but had to make her own accommodations at work. Sandberg co-ordinates shifts with her working husband to look after kids at home. So they've done it later (perhaps not an age that would require egg freezing though) and still have to make compromises anyway so what's the advantage? If they'd done that in their 20s, their kids would be out from under them by the time they hit their late 30s.
There's nothing wrong with the option existing to freeze eggs but tying it to companies like this turns it from being a medical benefit into being a lifestyle choice and it promotes work ahead of family. Marissa Mayer even states in the video at the above link that she puts her family before her work.
It says here only 2,000 babies have been born from frozen eggs worldwide:
"Women who want a baby after the age of 40 almost always have to resort to donor eggs, which are in short supply."
One benefit is if a woman has cancer, the chemo won't prevent them conceiving. One mention there is about women who haven't found a partner and don't expect to until later on but it's even harder to find a partner when they're over 40:
"A survey found eight out of 10 women over 50 think they have become invisible to men"
Women's looks start to fade in their late 20s and pretty much gone by 40 (with a handful of exceptions). That probably explains why there's only been 2,000 births as keeping the eggs fresh is only one part of it, you still have to find somebody willing to scramble them.
So, it's clear that offering the option is a good thing to provide for circumstances like cancer or other illnesses. I don't see why the benefit should be tied to which company you work for and I don't think it should be seen by women as a lifestyle choice and companies should make a point of dissuading delaying having children and instead promote having children when women's bodies are best suited for it and make accommodations for that choice.
It's not dictatorial to impose limitations on people for their own good. It's not oppressive to suggest that a woman can't abort her child except under special circumstances during her 3rd trimester as that's killing almost a fully formed child. There were polls done where ~10% of the people asked said even the 3rd trimester (6-9months) was ok:
They hit menopause - the end of their ability to conceive naturally - in their late 40s/early 50s. It's not essential to have a child aged 20-35 but as far as the biology is concerned, it is recommended.
That's not to say it can't work out ok later on. Marissa Mayer had her first child at 37, Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO) had her first child at 36 and second at 38 but it has the same effect on their work as it would if they were young:
Mayer cancelled the work from home policy because people were slacking off but had to make her own accommodations at work. Sandberg co-ordinates shifts with her working husband to look after kids at home. So they've done it later (perhaps not an age that would require egg freezing though) and still have to make compromises anyway so what's the advantage? If they'd done that in their 20s, their kids would be out from under them by the time they hit their late 30s.
There's nothing wrong with the option existing to freeze eggs but tying it to companies like this turns it from being a medical benefit into being a lifestyle choice and it promotes work ahead of family. Marissa Mayer even states in the video at the above link that she puts her family before her work.
It says here only 2,000 babies have been born from frozen eggs worldwide:
"Women who want a baby after the age of 40 almost always have to resort to donor eggs, which are in short supply."
One benefit is if a woman has cancer, the chemo won't prevent them conceiving. One mention there is about women who haven't found a partner and don't expect to until later on but it's even harder to find a partner when they're over 40:
"A survey found eight out of 10 women over 50 think they have become invisible to men"
Women's looks start to fade in their late 20s and pretty much gone by 40 (with a handful of exceptions). That probably explains why there's only been 2,000 births as keeping the eggs fresh is only one part of it, you still have to find somebody willing to scramble them.
So, it's clear that offering the option is a good thing to provide for circumstances like cancer or other illnesses. I don't think it should be seen by women as a lifestyle choice and companies should make a point of dissuading delaying having children and instead promote having children when women's bodies are best suited for it and make accommodations for that choice.
Marvin, in all circumstances when a government entity controls the personal decisions of a person, that is the definition of a dictatorial power. It's no one's decision but that of the individual.
Marvin, in all circumstances when a government entity controls the personal decisions of a person, that is the definition of a dictatorial power. It's no one's decision but that of the individual.
So a smoking ban is dictatorial? No because it's in the best interests of both smokers and the people around them even though it takes away the freedom of people who enjoy smoking.
Rules are implemented to maintain an overall sense of order. Freezing eggs is beneficial (e.g cancer or other illness) so the option should exist and it actually should be available to any woman who needs to do that. I don't think it should only be available based on what company you work at and it shouldn't be seen by women as a trivial way to put a career first.
I just think when these options are offered, they should inform people fully about why they're available and what the recommended route is. Take this for example:
Clearly the option to put a potato in there exists but outside of some sort of party trick, it's not recommended and people should be told that. There's no harm in limiting the use of something for the greater good. It's like that big fuss over drink sizes:
Is that dictatorial? No, go buy two if you're so unconcerned about your health that you purposely want to harm your own body. The recommended daily intake is within a lower limit.
The recommended age of conception is 20-35 and that's what should be promoted the most strongly. Motherhood isn't a burden or something to be ashamed of vs a career.
So a smoking ban is dictatorial? No because it's in the best interests of both smokers and the people around them even though it takes away the freedom of people who enjoy smoking.
Rules are implemented to maintain an overall sense of order. Freezing eggs is beneficial (e.g cancer or other illness) so the option should exist and it actually should be available to any woman who needs to do that. I don't think it should only be available based on what company you work at and it shouldn't be seen by women as a trivial way to put a career first.
I just think when these options are offered, they should inform people fully about why they're available and what the recommended route is. Take this for example:
Clearly the option to put a potato in there exists but outside of some sort of party trick, it's not recommended and people should be told that. There's no harm in limiting the use of something for the greater good. It's like that big fuss over drink sizes:
Is that dictatorial? No, go buy two if you're so unconcerned about your health that you purposely want to harm your own body. The recommended daily intake is within a lower limit.
The recommended age of conception is 20-35 and that's what should be promoted the most strongly. Motherhood isn't a burden or something to be ashamed of vs a career.
Marvin, in all circumstances when a government entity controls the personal decisions of a person, that is the definition of a dictatorial power. It's no one's decision but that of the individual.
Definitely not. This is the definition of democracy. "Dictatorial power" might more be "an individual or junta" controlling the individual decisions of everyone else. Democracy is the government laying out rules for people to live together well, which includes their personal decisions if they conflict with other people's freedoms or security. See my previous comments about planes, cars, smoking etc.
Is that dictatorial? No, go buy two if you're so unconcerned about your health that you purposely want to harm your own body. The recommended daily intake is within a lower limit.
This is totally going P&R, which is bad news in forums but...
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we have to legislate people into healthy choices. It's truly un-American, in my view. Enable people to make good choices by funding education and research into education -- what does it take to convince people to respect their body through their own free will?
New laws for this kind of stuff is lazy and pathetic. We're better than that.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we have to legislate people into healthy choices. It's truly un-American, in my view. Enable people to make good choices by funding education and research into education -- what does it take to convince people to respect their body through their own free will?
New laws for this kind of stuff is lazy and pathetic. We're better than that.
There's a strong herd mentality with people and if a lot of people are seen to be doing something then people go along with it - celebrity endorsements, popular trends, fashion etc. You can also be as educated as anyone and still succumb to your biological urges.
You can say why have parking regulations, people should be educated enough to make the right decision but decisions are made in the moment e.g I just need to do something for 5 minutes so it'll be ok to leave the car in the street and then it takes longer than you thought and you've caused a problem for someone else so then the regulations are written up to prevent it happening. Same with driving under the influence, it's not up to the individual to decide the safe limit.
If doctors agree that there is no possible justification for consuming a certain level of sugar, salt or anything else then it shouldn't affect anyone because if they were educated enough, they'd make that decision anyway. Some cases concern kids who can't be expected to know or care about these things.
Laws surrounding pregnancy and fertility are always tricky - nurses have been handing out birth control to underage girls for example:
Sexual activity at those ages is against the law and yet the incidents aren't reported - some girls might be pregnant through abuse at home. The decisions come down to what people perceive are for the greater good.
When it comes to freezing eggs, the decision to offer the option is clearly for the best intentions to give women more fertility options. Women are already being coerced more into working though so it may start a trend where the option is used unnecessarily as a lifestyle choice to delay having kids rather than having a medical benefit. I'd say forming a trend like that would not be for the greater good. The solution isn't to remove the option but to at least ask why the individual is using the option and inform them of the recommended route.
There's a strong herd mentality with people and if a lot of people are seen to be doing something then people go along with it - celebrity endorsements, popular trends, fashion etc. You can also be as educated as anyone and still succumb to your biological urges.
You can say why have parking regulations, people should be educated enough to make the right decision but decisions are made in the moment e.g I just need to do something for 5 minutes so it'll be ok to leave the car in the street and then it takes longer than you thought and you've caused a problem for someone else so then the regulations are written up to prevent it happening. Same with driving under the influence, it's not up to the individual to decide the safe limit.
If doctors agree that there is no possible justification for consuming a certain level of sugar, salt or anything else then it shouldn't affect anyone because if they were educated enough, they'd make that decision anyway. Some cases concern kids who can't be expected to know or care about these things.
Laws surrounding pregnancy and fertility are always tricky - nurses have been handing out birth control to underage girls for example:
Sexual activity at those ages is against the law and yet the incidents aren't reported - some girls might be pregnant through abuse at home. The decisions come down to what people perceive are for the greater good.
When it comes to freezing eggs, the decision to offer the option is clearly for the best intentions to give women more fertility options. Women are already being coerced more into working though so it may start a trend where the option is used unnecessarily as a lifestyle choice to delay having kids rather than having a medical benefit. I'd say forming a trend like that would not be for the greater good. The solution isn't to remove the option but to at least ask why the individual is using the option and inform them of the recommended route.
I get the herd mentality, but the parking example is different because of the immediate and direct impact on others. Granted, medical costs of people who have too much sugar will impact us all as well. Coca Cola was around in the 40s-70s too, and the herd mentality didn't produce a bunch of whales.
Doctors agreeing on no possible justification would be difficult. A large amount of Coke in a big hurry is a great way for me to push through the last 30 miles of a tough training ride when I overcooked the first 70 miles. That would have me on my way to a 6000 calorie burn day, and those Drs. can shove their recommendations.
Definitely not. This is the definition of democracy. "Dictatorial power" might more be "an individual or junta" controlling the individual decisions of everyone else. Democracy is the government laying out rules for people to live together well, which includes their personal decisions if they conflict with other people's freedoms or security. See my previous comments about planes, cars, smoking etc.
A democracy is not much better than a dictatorship.
In the U.S., we don't have a democracy because democracies do not result in the protection of individual rights. A democracy is mob rule.
Comments
But Spam Sandwich pulled a Godwin. Are you allowed to reply to him?
Misspelling Adolf is a loophole in the law, so yes.
LOL... How did I manage to misspell that name? Dang it.
It's not dictatorial to impose limitations on people for their own good. It's not oppressive to suggest that a woman can't abort her child except under special circumstances during her 3rd trimester as that's killing almost a fully formed child. There were polls done where ~10% of the people asked said even the 3rd trimester (6-9months) was ok:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_trimester_of_pregnancy
Women are no different at making bad choices than anyone else:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/cassidy-goodson-kills-murders-chokes-newborn-baby_n_1928754.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mass-woman-guilty-killing-friend-stealing-fetus-article-1.1611767
http://fox13now.com/2014/04/13/7-dead-babies-found-in-pg-home/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/china-arnold-appeal_n_3948106.html
People smoke during pregnancy and that shouldn't be legal either:
http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-smoking-during-pregnancy-affects-you-and-your-baby_1405720.bc
A woman's fertility falls off rapidly after 35 with a rapid increase in likelihood of birth defects:
http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/fertility-101
They hit menopause - the end of their ability to conceive naturally - in their late 40s/early 50s. It's not essential to have a child aged 20-35 but as far as the biology is concerned, it is recommended.
That's not to say it can't work out ok later on. Marissa Mayer had her first child at 37, Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO) had her first child at 36 and second at 38 but it has the same effect on their work as it would if they were young:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284828/Yahoo-boss-Marissa-Mayer-angers-employees-building-nursery-baby-office.html
Mayer cancelled the work from home policy because people were slacking off but had to make her own accommodations at work. Sandberg co-ordinates shifts with her working husband to look after kids at home. So they've done it later (perhaps not an age that would require egg freezing though) and still have to make compromises anyway so what's the advantage? If they'd done that in their 20s, their kids would be out from under them by the time they hit their late 30s.
There's nothing wrong with the option existing to freeze eggs but tying it to companies like this turns it from being a medical benefit into being a lifestyle choice and it promotes work ahead of family. Marissa Mayer even states in the video at the above link that she puts her family before her work.
It says here only 2,000 babies have been born from frozen eggs worldwide:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/freezing-eggs-female-staff-apple-facebook-analysis
"Women who want a baby after the age of 40 almost always have to resort to donor eggs, which are in short supply."
One benefit is if a woman has cancer, the chemo won't prevent them conceiving. One mention there is about women who haven't found a partner and don't expect to until later on but it's even harder to find a partner when they're over 40:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/10/online-dating-middle-aged-women
"A survey found eight out of 10 women over 50 think they have become invisible to men"
Women's looks start to fade in their late 20s and pretty much gone by 40 (with a handful of exceptions). That probably explains why there's only been 2,000 births as keeping the eggs fresh is only one part of it, you still have to find somebody willing to scramble them.
So, it's clear that offering the option is a good thing to provide for circumstances like cancer or other illnesses. I don't see why the benefit should be tied to which company you work for and I don't think it should be seen by women as a lifestyle choice and companies should make a point of dissuading delaying having children and instead promote having children when women's bodies are best suited for it and make accommodations for that choice.
Marvin, in all circumstances when a government entity controls the personal decisions of a person, that is the definition of a dictatorial power. It's no one's decision but that of the individual.
So a smoking ban is dictatorial? No because it's in the best interests of both smokers and the people around them even though it takes away the freedom of people who enjoy smoking.
Rules are implemented to maintain an overall sense of order. Freezing eggs is beneficial (e.g cancer or other illness) so the option should exist and it actually should be available to any woman who needs to do that. I don't think it should only be available based on what company you work at and it shouldn't be seen by women as a trivial way to put a career first.
I just think when these options are offered, they should inform people fully about why they're available and what the recommended route is. Take this for example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2779551/Woman-used-potato-contraceptive-hospitalised-began-grow-roots.html
Clearly the option to put a potato in there exists but outside of some sort of party trick, it's not recommended and people should be told that. There's no harm in limiting the use of something for the greater good. It's like that big fuss over drink sizes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/09/14/large-size-sugary-drink-ban-passes-in-nyc-opponents-vow-a-fight/
Is that dictatorial? No, go buy two if you're so unconcerned about your health that you purposely want to harm your own body. The recommended daily intake is within a lower limit.
The recommended age of conception is 20-35 and that's what should be promoted the most strongly. Motherhood isn't a burden or something to be ashamed of vs a career.
Are you claiming there's a Federal smoking ban?
B
Are you claiming there's a Federal smoking ban?
In public zones, yes, most definitely.
Actually, France wants to extend that not-limited-to-the-USA-ban to personal cars where children are on board. I think it complements Marvin's answer.
Marvin, in all circumstances when a government entity controls the personal decisions of a person, that is the definition of a dictatorial power. It's no one's decision but that of the individual.
Definitely not. This is the definition of democracy. "Dictatorial power" might more be "an individual or junta" controlling the individual decisions of everyone else. Democracy is the government laying out rules for people to live together well, which includes their personal decisions if they conflict with other people's freedoms or security. See my previous comments about planes, cars, smoking etc.
It's like that big fuss over drink sizes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/09/14/large-size-sugary-drink-ban-passes-in-nyc-opponents-vow-a-fight/
Is that dictatorial? No, go buy two if you're so unconcerned about your health that you purposely want to harm your own body. The recommended daily intake is within a lower limit.
This is totally going P&R, which is bad news in forums but...
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we have to legislate people into healthy choices. It's truly un-American, in my view. Enable people to make good choices by funding education and research into education -- what does it take to convince people to respect their body through their own free will?
New laws for this kind of stuff is lazy and pathetic. We're better than that.
There's a strong herd mentality with people and if a lot of people are seen to be doing something then people go along with it - celebrity endorsements, popular trends, fashion etc. You can also be as educated as anyone and still succumb to your biological urges.
You can say why have parking regulations, people should be educated enough to make the right decision but decisions are made in the moment e.g I just need to do something for 5 minutes so it'll be ok to leave the car in the street and then it takes longer than you thought and you've caused a problem for someone else so then the regulations are written up to prevent it happening. Same with driving under the influence, it's not up to the individual to decide the safe limit.
If doctors agree that there is no possible justification for consuming a certain level of sugar, salt or anything else then it shouldn't affect anyone because if they were educated enough, they'd make that decision anyway. Some cases concern kids who can't be expected to know or care about these things.
Laws surrounding pregnancy and fertility are always tricky - nurses have been handing out birth control to underage girls for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/new-york-city-public-schools-birth-control-plan-b_n_2615702.html
Sexual activity at those ages is against the law and yet the incidents aren't reported - some girls might be pregnant through abuse at home. The decisions come down to what people perceive are for the greater good.
When it comes to freezing eggs, the decision to offer the option is clearly for the best intentions to give women more fertility options. Women are already being coerced more into working though so it may start a trend where the option is used unnecessarily as a lifestyle choice to delay having kids rather than having a medical benefit. I'd say forming a trend like that would not be for the greater good. The solution isn't to remove the option but to at least ask why the individual is using the option and inform them of the recommended route.
There's a strong herd mentality with people and if a lot of people are seen to be doing something then people go along with it - celebrity endorsements, popular trends, fashion etc. You can also be as educated as anyone and still succumb to your biological urges.
You can say why have parking regulations, people should be educated enough to make the right decision but decisions are made in the moment e.g I just need to do something for 5 minutes so it'll be ok to leave the car in the street and then it takes longer than you thought and you've caused a problem for someone else so then the regulations are written up to prevent it happening. Same with driving under the influence, it's not up to the individual to decide the safe limit.
If doctors agree that there is no possible justification for consuming a certain level of sugar, salt or anything else then it shouldn't affect anyone because if they were educated enough, they'd make that decision anyway. Some cases concern kids who can't be expected to know or care about these things.
Laws surrounding pregnancy and fertility are always tricky - nurses have been handing out birth control to underage girls for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/new-york-city-public-schools-birth-control-plan-b_n_2615702.html
Sexual activity at those ages is against the law and yet the incidents aren't reported - some girls might be pregnant through abuse at home. The decisions come down to what people perceive are for the greater good.
When it comes to freezing eggs, the decision to offer the option is clearly for the best intentions to give women more fertility options. Women are already being coerced more into working though so it may start a trend where the option is used unnecessarily as a lifestyle choice to delay having kids rather than having a medical benefit. I'd say forming a trend like that would not be for the greater good. The solution isn't to remove the option but to at least ask why the individual is using the option and inform them of the recommended route.
I get the herd mentality, but the parking example is different because of the immediate and direct impact on others. Granted, medical costs of people who have too much sugar will impact us all as well. Coca Cola was around in the 40s-70s too, and the herd mentality didn't produce a bunch of whales.
Doctors agreeing on no possible justification would be difficult. A large amount of Coke in a big hurry is a great way for me to push through the last 30 miles of a tough training ride when I overcooked the first 70 miles. That would have me on my way to a 6000 calorie burn day, and those Drs. can shove their recommendations.
A democracy is not much better than a dictatorship.
In the U.S., we don't have a democracy because democracies do not result in the protection of individual rights. A democracy is mob rule.
My biological urges don’t tell me it’s okay to do drugs because some psychopath says they’re legal now.