Another thought on FAQ
Tuesday, 10 July 2007 by Joscelynn TomawIn this day and age of “rights to abortion”, why assume that it’s a binary choice? Either I don’t want the baby or I do want the baby and desire to avoid miscarriage “at all costs” (I’ll be posting on why I hate this phrase later)?
Maybe the government should be required to provide me with a compendium of the precise statistics on fetal mortality for all activities so that I can properly construct a preference curve. A woman might prefer to assume, say 30% chance across the board that she might miscarry.
Posted in Uncategorized
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 10th, 2007 at 13:15
Interesting idea. Why limit it to pregnancy.
Perhaps there should be a device that is pulling in data about your lifestyle and the environment around you. Aggregating this data into your current risk of death, like a super duper heart rate monitor.
The Risk-O-Meter could be set to a percentage risk of death. I am rather risky so I might set it to 25%. However, I am financially conservative and I would probably get a better premium on my insurance if i set it to 10%. Then the R-O-M will sound an alarm if I get too risky.
Speeding close to other cars, alarm. Extra sour cream on the burritos, alarm. Forget to kiss your wife goodnight, ALARM!
July 10th, 2007 at 15:15
This was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but now that I think about it, I guess there could be a not-so-crazy way this could happen. What if we could insure our baby’s successful birth for different amounts? I’m sure the good old actuaries would happily tell us exactly which activities we could and could not partake in.
There isn’t insurance like this, is there? Or am I overlooking something?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:24
I’ve never heard of anything like it, but you could patent it! I’m sure people would do it. Especially if they’ve had problems conceiving and could not afford further treatment.