alittlejolly t1_j0gt2c7 wrote

reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy where to take something to an absurd end which in your case was the question. "Women shouldn't have jobs?". Obviously that statement is ridiculous and is nowhere near the what I said.

I also understand that this is a hot button issue for you but you don't seem to be actually reading what I wrote. I completely think that women should have this option and my argument is that the government should pay for it otherwise it will likely result in additional discrimination against hiring women.


alittlejolly t1_j0gr7yn wrote

I think that you read a lot into my comment and decided to take it ad absurdum. Or course women should have jobs and of course they should not have to work through painful periods. The key point for the comment was the devil is in the details. Women should have access to those sick days and government should cover the cost . If the government doesn't then the business has to make the tough choice of whether or not they want to hire someone who may cost them more money.


alittlejolly t1_j0decez wrote

Who pays for the salary during the sick days? If it was paid by the government that is great but if a business has to pay for it then it may become a double edged sword. If I was a small business and needed to hire someone and the choice was between an equally qualified person with a uterus and a person without one I would probably hire the person without a uterus. The reality is that I wouldn't be able to afford the risk of having an employee not being available for some time each month. While I commend the idea, I worry about unintended consequences.