U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#91

Post by MrStonedOne » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

Bostonian wrote: post #35

samizdis wrote: post #3

"Looking at the abortion law, or the gun law, or the voting law, it's a form of vigilante justice, where you're empowering individuals to enforce the law," said Tyson Tuttle, the CEO of Austin-based Silicon Laboratories (SLAB.O). "It's been a rough week in Texas and a harbinger of what's to come across the country." I'm from across the pond, and have spent limited time in the US - none of it in Texas - but I always t…

Much of the criticism of the Texas voting law is demagoguery: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-really-in-the-texas-votin... What’s Really in the Texas Voting Law Progressives are crying ‘voter suppression,’ but here are the facts. By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal Sept. 1, 2021 6:38 pm ET ... The Texas bill isn’t a blockade of the ballot box. The two most-cited provisions will ban 24-hour voting and drive-…

>Goofs will be correctable until “the sixth day after election day.”

Too short of a timeline.

> Mail votes will be reported separately on election returns.

This is a poison pill you can't see.

Democrats have always been more likely to use mail in ballots because they are more likely to be in a position where going to poll isn't feasible.

So if the mail in votes lean one direction, and get reported separately (especially in a way that delays them) then republicans can attack the legitimacy of those votes.

Texas is gonna end up turning blue here soon and they want to make sure they can attack the legitimacy of that.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#92

Post by WanderPanda » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #51

WanderPanda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human rights are a binary thing: either you are a human and you have them, or you are not a human and you don't have them. IMO it all comes down to when we define the bag of cells to be a human being. Once the bag of cells is a human being murdering it is obviously a crime. IMO any view point between the first cells are already a human being to it becoming a human at birth are valid. Why not settle this in a referend…

This frame is an error, and is leading to a lot of unnecessary division imo. Unborn people are unique because they are entirely dependent upon a mother to survive in a way that cannot be replaced. The human right to life is not absolute, at least under current law: a person who literally requires your body’s metabolical processes to survive is not entitled to that, and so we have decided the provider has the choice t…

Interesting standpoint, I've never heard that argument (I'm also not very deep into this issue just couldn't hold back my superficial 2 cents). But imo it does not really invalidate the opposite standpoint, it just rationalises one point of view.

In that same framework, wouldn't a hospital be also allowed to turn of life support as it sees fit?

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#93

Post by colinmhayes » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

lax4ever wrote: post #57

colinmhayes wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. If you caused a car accident which lead to the other person needing a kidney transplant that only you can provide should you be required to give up a kidney? I don't see how abortion is different. Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to b…

A baby outside the womb can't survive without support either. Why is it OK to kill the child in the womb but not outside the womb based on that position?

Because other people are willing to give the baby support once it's born. If the options are force the mother to take care of the embryo or allow the mother to decide whether to take care of it then I think we shouldn't force people to take care of those they don't want to. But once the child is born the options change. Now the choices are between letting the mother kill something that other can care for or letting those others provide the care.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#94

Post by beerandt » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

samizdis wrote: post #3

"Looking at the abortion law, or the gun law, or the voting law, it's a form of vigilante justice, where you're empowering individuals to enforce the law," said Tyson Tuttle, the CEO of Austin-based Silicon Laboratories (SLAB.O). "It's been a rough week in Texas and a harbinger of what's to come across the country." I'm from across the pond, and have spent limited time in the US - none of it in Texas - but I always t…

Before this week the most restrictive state law in the US was more permissive of abortions (24 weeks by request without cause) than the most liberal European countries (22 weeks by request without cause -or- 24 weeks with 1-2 or more medical doctors good faith declaration of risk).

Other European countries are more conservative. And the vast majority of jurisdictions outside Europe are even more conservative than that.

But that info is nowhere in the news, or even on the Wikipedia page that just lumps all countries together that allow any abortions by request.

This is 100% a media-driven issue.

Until this week, Europe was more "Red State" on the issue than Texas. All other red states continue to be.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#95

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #14

collegeburner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure. So the question about whether it's a private medical choice or an issue of bodily autonomy doesn't even enter into the discussion. There are laws against murdering someone other ways that restrict bodily au…

In which case it's very simple: Is a fetus/embryo a baby or not? And what is the logical conclusion of that?

[deleted]

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#96

Post by WanderPanda » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

lax4ever wrote: post #77

gfodor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This frame is an error, and is leading to a lot of unnecessary division imo. Unborn people are unique because they are entirely dependent upon a mother to survive in a way that cannot be replaced. The human right to life is not absolute, at least under current law: a person who literally requires your body’s metabolical processes to survive is not entitled to that, and so we have decided the provider has the choice t…

Why is it just metabolic support that is the qualifier here? A child is still very dependent on caregivers for years after exiting the birth canal, and in many cases a child remains dependent on the mother's metabolic processes when thy receive breastmilk. Why is it acceptable to kill the child before exiting the birth canal but not after?

I see the point that there is no single way to separate the unborn from its mother, while in all other cases there are ways that it can survive when separated (even though the separation might not be allowed).

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#97

Post by 6051A86D » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

pope_meat wrote: post #75

6051A86D wrote: post #44

This is not a political discussion site. Please don't submit stories like this. They just provide yet another anonymous place for people to argue and talk past each other.

Insisting on keeping things apolitical is a political statement in itself, just in favor of the status quo, rather than in opposition. You can't escape politics.

There are innumerable other places to have political discussions. This topic is indisputably a lightning rod and catalyst for flamewars. Can we have one single place where we agree not to disagree like this? Without that we will never agree on anything.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#98

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #33

bpodgursky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow the straightforward answer ("no at first, yes by the end") is anathema to the activists at either end of the spectrum here. But those are the ones you hear from.

They actually do discuss that on the pro-life side. They point out in that case, where's the line? Calling it "viability" is fuzzy because, are old people / disabled viable; and also because preemie babies are increasingly likely to survive earlier and earlier. For example, just a few weeks ago, the world's most premature baby (with 0% chance of survival at the time, completely unviable) just had his 1st birthday. ht…

I understand that's about the earliest viability will ever be, because if there aren't working lungs, it simply can't survive.

On the other hand, perhaps technology will advance to the point where even a fertilized egg could grow outside the womb. Then abortion might turn into "take this thing out of me and find somebody else that wants it."

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#99

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

WanderPanda wrote: post #92

gfodor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This frame is an error, and is leading to a lot of unnecessary division imo. Unborn people are unique because they are entirely dependent upon a mother to survive in a way that cannot be replaced. The human right to life is not absolute, at least under current law: a person who literally requires your body’s metabolical processes to survive is not entitled to that, and so we have decided the provider has the choice t…

Interesting standpoint, I've never heard that argument (I'm also not very deep into this issue just couldn't hold back my superficial 2 cents). But imo it does not really invalidate the opposite standpoint, it just rationalises one point of view. In that same framework, wouldn't a hospital be also allowed to turn of life support as it sees fit?

This framework is relevant because it is the one used to regulate the legality of abortion under Roe v Wade. (Viability)

Also re: hospitals, this moral framework has no real analog given the nature of pregnancy being unique. If there were other phenomena where we could become biologically attached (without full intention) to others to sustain them through our own biological functions, then the same legal and moral frameworks seems like they would apply to those scenarios - but I am not aware of any such situations.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#100

Post by s5300 » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

moxzyros wrote: post #88

samizdis wrote: post #3

"Looking at the abortion law, or the gun law, or the voting law, it's a form of vigilante justice, where you're empowering individuals to enforce the law," said Tyson Tuttle, the CEO of Austin-based Silicon Laboratories (SLAB.O). "It's been a rough week in Texas and a harbinger of what's to come across the country." I'm from across the pond, and have spent limited time in the US - none of it in Texas - but I always t…

What you probably don't realize is how culturally diverse America is, maybe more so than any other country. The thinking and culture varies wildly. Rural Texas could not be more different than urban California. I care deeply about rights, but I suppose I cannot count myself among the enlightened; I cannot condone abortion since there is no way to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that the unborn are not sentient peop…

Due process in an unfathomably gerrymandered state is a straw man.