Then she doesn't have as much commitment to her career or the company as employee number one, so I know which one I'd be employing.

I can take you, you know, Niamh...

Well there we have it, the consensus in business will be that if a woman hasn't committed to freezing eggs and agreeing to postpone motherhood for X amount of years she will be considered to be not fully committed to her career...
Meanwhile will there be a similar sperm freezing facility?

The one who allows you to mess around with her reproductive system? :think: Who says she's still not the better candidate just because she doesn't want that invasive procedure carried out on her?

Because there will come a time when Candidate No.2's kid is sick, and backs are to the wall, and a deadline is looming... and her mind will be at home and not on the job. Maybe she could build a career with a more suitable company. Maybe Mumsnet is hiring?

So what you're saying is that you think it's ok to not promote a person who may be better for the job because some day she might have a kid who might be sick and she may need time off? :think:

Well kids aren't the only "possible" interruption to someone's life. What if a parent gets sick? What if a partner is seriously ill? What if someone has an accident and requires care for disabilities?

What if? What if? What if? :fan: You can't pass someone over for a job on the off chance something could happen. Nobody knows what life will hold. :laugh:

A kid being off school ill doesn't always necessitate time off for the employee anyway.

No... I'm asking... why would someone even want a high-pressure job that demands your time without notice, if they had a family at home? Do you think it would be fair to her family? Again, if the husband/partner has taken on the childcare mantle, that's quite a different issue... but let's say he hasn't, or that she's a single Mum. Is that good for the kids? Or is it just good for the woman who wants to have it all?

Yeah, stretching the discussion to its absolute limit there, Marshy. This is about women freezing their eggs and delaying motherhood for their career.

Why is that for you to decide though, if it is or it isn't ok for a woman with kids to go for a job like that? And if you're so concerned about their family life what about the kids that are produced from these frozen eggs when the mother is old and burnt out from this high powered job of hers?

Why will she be old and burned out from her job? No one on here knows what age the women involved might want their kids. Lots of people have kids from frozen eggs... sometimes for medical reasons. People have IVF.... There are all kinds of ways to get pregnant that aren't "natural" but it doesn't diminish the experience so I don't know why this is being looked at like some kind of Frankenstein offer.

I love my job, I really do. It's a dream job... but if my circumstanced has been different I would probably have started, or at least be starting a family now. I wouldn't have expected to do a job like this because it would be an impossible balance. Women just can't have it all. It is not always possible.

Well presumably these companies aren't paying for this process without getting their monies worth out of their employee? And why would these employees need to have their eggs frozen anyway if they were going to be of an age where conception is possible naturally when they decided to have kids?

I guess you'd have to ask them that. That's their decision. Which was my original point.

Ask them what? The whole point in having their eggs frozen is so they can have kids after nature won't let them.........

I think you'll find it's because fertility drops as you get older, doesn't it. It doesn't just suddenly stop.

Wonder how they will enforce this actually thinking about it properly...as unless the women in question also agree to go celibate until the end of their career they could still get pregnant anyway :S

Yes as you get older into your 40's which is my point, and what does a woman do at that point then when she's climbed the ladder, retire so she can raise her kids? cos she won't fit in her swanky profession after she's popped one out, surely?

I mentioned this a couple of pages back too, there must be some restrictions either their job wont be held open to return or there is no maternity pay once signed.

:laugh: I made this point on the last page it's not exactly the right time to get pregnant and have all that time off due to your ageing body not being able to cope with a first time pregnancy when you have just landed the Job as Head of Department

Sorry, havent read through the thread yet. Seems we are definitely on the same page though :p

Exactly.

I was only following up a point that you brought up. :laugh:

Don't get smart arse lady. :fist:

Gotta say.. that's how I see it too. Some people want it all, and it's just not realistic.

:umm2:it's realistic for men

That is such a good point, people take time off work for a myriad of reasons, not just child care

Interesting article on this topic...

'Egg-freezing is no guarantee of having a child, though. Studies indicate that women who have three rounds of egg retrieval at around $10,000 per round have a slightly more than 30 percent chance of giving birth if they are 25 or younger when the eggs are frozen. The closer women get to age 40, the lower the likelihood of success. If women limit themselves to the two rounds of egg retrieval covered by the new benefits, that also will reduce the odds.'

Seems that there is a chance that this procedure could fail based on the amount/quality of eggs retrieved, it's a massive gamble.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcons...n-egg-freezing