Women's Bioethics

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by RainbowSingularity, Dec 26, 2019.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    Christmas thought(Births Deaths Marriages & family Renunciations etc) ... (im about to post a thread[if i get to it] on sand consumption globally & looking for the correct place to put it as it involves ethics around use of other countrys resources and national climate ecology impact on people and their ability to live farm gather water and sew crops etc)

    someone i know(i know very very few people) was talking about pregnancy issues around professional women and their ability to maintain work place networks while being under the demand of pregnancy & working at the same time).

    ... and the same fact hit me for around the 4th or 5th time in a few years with an unanswered question
    only 50% of society (or less) are capable of being pregnant, so where is the equal distribution of funding by the government to ensure this economic bias is balanced ?
    and the feeling of society's answer still seemed to be some type of muted finger tapping on a table top while waiting for someone else to change the subject to something a little more convenient.

    where does the implied sense of right to tell pregnant women what they can & cant do, What they Can & Cant Eat & how they should live, what type of medical procedures they should or should not have...
    balanced against the societal equality to provide security of equal support to professional women.

    maybe it is time for organizations to be set up that specifically support professional women who are pregnant(or attempting to conceive[fertility treatments etc]).

    Professional women seeking Fertility or Pregnant are not some dirty little C.E.O cheating on his wife & family
    they should not be treated the same with a dismissive giggle and a "none of our business" wink or head-toss.
    or
    Rich peoples Problems... ?(wtf is that about)
    Birth Peoples Problems ... !
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,048
    You can't use government money to overcome an economic bias. Just doesn't work. If you really want to spend money, put that money towards women's education, promotion of maternity (and paternity) leave programs and prevention of violence against women.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    tax kick backs for companys providing jobs ?

    you are against these ?

    farm subsidies, gas subsidies ...etc you are against these ?

    "cant" is a strong(positive gain verses negative gain one must clearly show a negative gain to define it as a cant) word when it comes to ideological imperatives toward theory models for large mixed market economy etc...

    what i was going to post...(as a discussion point)
    the problem with the world today is, there are no pregnant company CEO's
    (my colouring is purely artistic)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,048
    In general, yes. Taking tax money and using it to put carbon in the atmosphere is, in general, a bad idea for many reasons. As is paying farmers to grow nothing.
    Audrey Gelman is pregnant. I believe Collette Nataf is still pregnant as well. As were Marissa Mayer and Rhea Drysdale, although they have since had their babies.
     
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    government regulation on industry ? you suggest the installment of regulation on business to prevent them putting carbon into the air to equally load against governments social compliance to not put carbon in the air ?
    (government employees right to carry guns on to their work place for personal protection?)

    Education Health Government employees wages & salaries... taxing government wage payments ...

    paying farmers to grow nothing is a bit of a WWI billboard.
    im not sure what you mean.

    do you mean government payments to remove crops and convert to a different crop type ?
    ... currency manipulation? quantitative easing ?
    ... tax back forward payments to those who pay vastly more in taxs from employees etc ?
    verse ? sales tax exemptions for company's ?

    its hardly a clear line, its very blury and grey
    i dont think it can be a very clear line
    i think we need to maintain a bit of the blur to maintain a bit of the money-go-round and sustain things like low income perks against perk tax used to punish low wage people for rich elitist extortion of profit margins for personal gain etc.

    however
    the point is
    men cant simply opt in to be pregnant
    being pregnant is a mandatory requirement for the species
    with no births business would collapse
    entire economys would collapse
    new babys is a MASSIVE new money industry
    etc etc...

    how many women are able to be pregnant physically and have the house to raise that child & are not to old or too young ? 20% of the female population ?

    how many women are able to be pregnant without needing income support from the government ?

    10% of the female population ?

    that's a bit messed up when you look at the economic/financial imperatives placed on continuity of the professional woman.
     

Share This Page