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

#101

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

WanderPanda wrote: post #96

lax4ever wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Correct. In the future if we can extract a fetus safely (to both mother and child) and bring it to term then under current law abortion by termination would be illegal, is my understanding.

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

#102

Post by colinmhayes » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

anonymouse008 wrote: post #52

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…

> 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. I shuddered a bit reading this. By this logic, at any point where I am dependent on someone else for my survival in passage (say an airplane) the principle in the relationship (the pilot or airline) has a right to kill me? If that’s the logic, then we can squarely see that w…

Having sex is not agreeing to carry around another person for 9 months. Consent is important. I don't think society has agreed that we punish people who kill others in car accidents, but I'd love examples of when we have and the person at fault wasn't drunk.

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

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

dfee wrote: post #84

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> supposedly restrictive voting laws do not generally have more restrictions than blue states such as New York Can you give any examples to support this? We have no ID requirement, no questions asked mail-in ballots, early voting, and paper ballots. The Texas law isn’t all bad. Recording vote counting, paper trails and regulating the removal of voters from rolls is good policy. But the restrictions on early voting an…

Here are those limits: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html They really don’t seem draconian to me.

Those are the current limits. These are the new ones [1].

[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/21/texas-voting-restric...

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

#104

Post by option » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #78

option wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regarding “voter suppression”. Do you require an ID to vote in UK? I don’t get why is this controversial in US…

Because many poor and specific minority groups people don’t have IDs. These laws are specifically designed knowing that these groups rarely vote Republican yet are big enough group to make a dent.

so isn’t the main problem which need immediate fix is the fact that they don’t have an Id. You do already have to have an Id for many basic thing. Getting an Id should be very cheap (even free for some) and very easy.

Personally, when I came to US as an immigrant it was very cheap and easy for me.

And in my home country in Europe everyone needs an Id to vote and no one complains.

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

#105

Post by WanderPanda » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

bserge wrote: post #69

WanderPanda wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cough Brexit cough

Brexit was a vote by the ignored masses on important issues. I bet my life it wouldn't have happened if the UK gov implemented the same workers protections and immigration rules as Germany, for example.

Like we all now that buying votes is a very sustainable thing to do...

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

#106

Post by big_youth » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

dfee wrote: post #7

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP knows the only way they can keep power in Florida and Texas is by making sure people don’t move there unless they’re super conservative, hence all those stupid laws. The housing crisis in a lot of blue states has made a lot of middle class folks move to those states. Their electorate is mostly non-Hispanic white, non-immigrant and older and their numbers will continue to dwindle over time.

This doesn’t seem recognizable to me. Do you live in Texas? (Yeah, parent comment has changed.)

Yes, third generation Native with a house in urban Austin but currently near the Guadalupe Mountains out west.

I know reddit isn't representative of the state but both /r/austin and /r/texas have had this conversation many times.[0][1] I personally agree with the thesis that Texas GOP see's the demographic writing on the wall and want to limit to more liberal immigrants.

And because I already saw a comment mentioning it, I want to add that as a Mexican born and raised a border town I think the flipped Hispanic counties on the border are an anomaly. If you investigate the counties, like Zavala, that flipped, they are 1 largely blue collar men which love Trump (my roofer uncle), and 2 Zavala was actually one of the few counties that LOST population according to the 2020 census. The correlation is visible, the counties that had the highest population decline in Texas voted most heavily for Trump while the fast growing suburbs are now purple and blue. In this booming state the poor counties losing money and people are the ones voting GOP.

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/phszk7/anyone_sudde...

[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/pgjze1/anyone_else_g...

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

#107

Post by moxzyros » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #59

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…

> 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. Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't ma…

Not true. My church and I have no beef with birth-control. It is the issue of whether the unborn are people in the eyes of God that drives conviction.

And things aren't so simple. You cannot demonstrate the unborn are sentient anymore than animals. We cannot demonstrate that either. We choose to err on the side of the unborn out of fear if we're wrong.

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

#108

Post by lax4ever » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

WanderPanda wrote: post #96

lax4ever wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That still doesn't answer why killing the child is acceptable.

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

#109

Post by jeffbee » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #36

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If only life was that simple. Sometimes the answer is a cold "it is a life; and you should end it."

Indeed, abortions are called for in cases of severe defects that will eventually kill the fetus anyway, and possibly the mother if left alone. Defects like triploidy, which generally are not detected before 11 weeks, are always fatal to the fetus, and risky for the mother.

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

#110

Post by klyrs » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

One way to look at this law is that it uses an "escape hatch" to prevent people from having the standing to sue the state over it. Let's use it to ban hate speech -- anybody who aids and abets the publication of hate speech is fair game, not just the person who wrote it. Let's use it to ban all guns -- everybody from the gun shop to the gun range employees are fair game for aiding and abetting the use of firearms. Let's use it to replace taxes -- if somebody has 10x more money than you, sue them and their bank, financial advisors. Let's use it to ban gas vehicles -- lawsuits for everybody that's ever been driven somewhere. Let's use it for Sharia law -- every violation is a lawsuit, and the state pays handsomely to the lawyers who enforce it.

If this citizen enforcement truly is an end run on the constitution, there's no reason not to use that. And just like this Texan law, jurisdiction doesn't matter. If Washington State bans guns, hate speech, wealth,cars and implements Sharia law, it can be enforced around the country. If there's nothing unconstitutional about the way this Texan law is implemented, then the constitution is little more than a tissue in a tornado.