Once upon a time, being a mother was considered a career choice and working outside the home was something women did out of necessity to help the household budget. If mum had to go out to work, things were obviously not too flush on the home front.

Of course that was eons ago, back in the olden days, even before my own time.

But it seems the pendulum has now swung to the other extreme, with motherhood becoming the thing you do on the side, that blip on the career radar where you take time off to tick the box of parenthood and domesticity before getting back on the corporate treadmill and continuing the climb up that slippery ladder.

Global giants like Apple and Google are now offering women the chance to freeze their eggs so they can concentrate on building their resumes rather than cubby houses or cupcakes for the school fete, and put all their undivided attention into increasing the bottom line instead of changing a line of bottoms.

It may seem like the perfect solution to the juggling act many women do between career and caring - put off now what you can do later. However, rather than being met with unanimous applause, this latest tinkering of our biological clocks has created a storm of controversy not just in the US but here at home as well.

Fiddling with women's fertility is not a new thing. We've gone from the tortuous chastity belt in mediaeval times, to the freedom that little pill gave feminists of the '60s and '70s. Even creating a life in a petrie dish has allowed women to thumb their noses at mother nature in some ways.

So why has this latest technological offer become such a hot topic of water cooler conversation? Is it simply because it's the next revolution in reproduction, or has this offer of occupation over offspring thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

There are those who think it's the ideal solution for young women who want to be able to take time off from their career crusade at the time that is right for them - fiscally, psychologically and physically. Being able to put their eggs away for a rainy day means they can compete for those corporate crowns without bosses worrying about them being preoccupied with prams and preschools.

Then there are others who think making women choose between being perennially professional and maternally materialistic is changing the natural order of things - that this choice is making a mockery of the mammoth task of motherhood by relegating it to something that can be taken on as an addendum to the rest of their lives.

And at a price of $20,000 per woman who takes up the chance to chill her ovum, it's a relatively cheap option for an international megalith like Google or Apple to get a few more good years out of their female employees before they "retire" from the frontline to take care of kids.

But should that be the end scenario? Have we not moved past the point where women are considered not capable of having a career and a family? After all, it's women who have perfected the skill of multi-tasking. And is it still assumed that men do not have an equal role in child-rearing and that they too can divide their attention between work, play and parenting?

Although I firmly believe it is nobody's business if you want children or a career or both, I also don't think it is a decision that can be made when starting on the corporate road to riches.

Circumstances change, wants and needs don't stay static and nobody should be expected to make a decision to delay the joy of family for the good of the company.