Mal
Perhaps you should have looked up the definition of commodity before writing an article based on misunderstanding it:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=commodity+definition&oq=commodity+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57l2j69i65l3j69i61.2940j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

"Pregnancy ought not to be seen as a tradable commodity..."

Why shouldn't any human want be the subject of voluntary exchanges intended to satisfy it? Who are you to tell other people what their peaceable values should be, based on your non-peaceable values?

"This will happen without adequate regulation..."

You have not established any justification for threatening to have people caged and raped. While that definitely is an abuse of human rights, offering voluntary services to people is not so, morally speaking, you are totally confused.

"A public reaction to all of this will likely see the tech giants trying to sell us back our privacy, despite the fact that they?ve been culpable in its removal."

What is done voluntarily is not culpable. Again you are advocating that people be caged or raped for something that is not wrong. Once you take into account the coercive nature of what you advocate, and the non-coercive nature of what you're trying to suppress, your entire argument collapses.

"Behemoths like Apple and Facebook need to understand that there are limits to our gullibility and we will not always be willing participants in our own commodification."

You are misrepresenting the situation. The revenue of Apple and Facebook comes entirely from consensual transactions. The revenue from governments comes entirely from non-consensual transactions. If you were really concerned to avoid unjust "commodification" you'd be objecting to taxation, not to companies offering extra conditions to their employees.

There is no such thing as a general and abstract right to privacy. Privacy is an incident of property rights, that is all.

Yet another complaint about big business from our resident Big Brother paranoid.

It has clearly escaped your notice, Mr Fletcher, that the companies in question are responding to the legitimate, and completely understandable, wishes of a number of their employees. They are not shackling them to their desks and depriving them of their rights. Instead they are offering (that's offering, not insisting upon) a service to female employees who might prefer to work a few more years before starting a family.

From my own observations over a number of years in business, people, and families, are complex constructs, with often widely differing views on how they might best combine work, family and leisure. Offering a service such as this is a perfectly benign employee perk, and is a move with much to commend it from a human resource management perspective.

But in your defence, you are only using the topic as an excuse for your usual rant about the iniquities of industry in the twentyfirst century. So you don't approve of progress. We get it. Get over it.

Yes Pericles, and hear hear!
If it were the menfolk having the babies, numskull/risible rant articles just like this wouldn't appear!
And creches and or, work from home options, would be just par for the course, in every employment occupation!
Rhrosty.

The first "commodification" of women's bodies occurred when the contraceptive pill was invented. The control of the bodies reproduction enabled women to put off child bearing to achieve education and a career. However, the stumbling block is human biology which dictates that human eggs deteriorate rapidly such that by 40 fertility is greatly diminished, and freezing eggs mostly reverses this.

It is no secret that a gap of several years to raise children has a negative impact on one's career, and for those who wish to pursue a career for longer, this gives an option to do so without sacrificing the chance of having a family.