&gt;<i>Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open.</i><p>I don&#x27;t appeal to any such BS. The so called &quot;Copenhagen theory of ethics&quot; is an ill-thought neologism of the writer of the blog post, and lacks several metric tons of nuances and considerations.<p>The basic premise -- that a third-party has the same &quot;moral obligation&quot; to pay her maternity leave as the person who employeed her, made money of her (the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers) and fired her when she become pregnant, is absurd.<p>Not only that, but protections against firing an employee that became pregnant are an accepted part of the legal and moral obligations of an employee, enforced by law in most developed countries.<p>If anything the burden of proof is on the author of TFA to counter the thinking of all those legislators.<p>I would also like to know how a deal like &quot;I&#x27;ll give you food everyday for having sex with you&quot; to a poor woman who hates the idea, but is starving and thus accepts it, is any different than the situations lauded by the author of TFA article.<p>After all the woman is better off, right? She would be starving or even dead from hunger. And she accepted the deal by her own volition.