Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 174 posts

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

#111

Post by lax4ever »

colinmhayes wrote: post #93
lax4ever wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

So, because the mother doesn't care they are allowed to take a life?

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

#112

Post by notadev »

klyrs wrote: post #110

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. Le…

I have no particular stance on abortion myself, but speech and bearing arms are constitutionally protected. Is abortion?

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

#113

Post by peter422 »

bserge wrote: post #31
peter422 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Embryo, not fetus. It is not a fetus until many weeks after the 6 week cutoff.

I killed part of myself by cutting my nails. They're cells too, I should be executed!

What does this have anything to do with what I’m saying?

I’m just telling you the terms for what a developing human is called. The OC said fetus, which is a term that has a specific meaning.

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

#114

Post by gfodor »

lax4ever wrote: post #108
WanderPanda wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does: the primacy is that a person always has the choice to cease providing metabolic support of another person. If you take this as primacy then consequential death as a side effect of exercising that choice is killing, for sure, but a distinct category of killing with regards to culpability. Analogies fail: abortion is a unique form of killing by ending internal biologically bound sacrificial life support, so it’s best to not reach for analogs.

I would say for full consistency with this it would imply abortion providers ought to take steps to not directly inflict harm, but practically speaking death is assured under this framework and so perhaps that falls onto questions of suffering vs painless death.

Edit: To be more direct, the killing is considered acceptable since the alternative is less acceptable: namely, that a person who is providing biologically, metabolically bound life support to another via an umbilical cord is not permitted to cut that cord of their own agency, under penalty of law.

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

#115

Post by golangguy »

collegeburner wrote: post #32
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…

If you could be determined to be solely at fault, and if you're a match, and if there aren't other kidneys available, then I suppose that would make sense. The issue is that the mother (usually) made a choice to help create the fetus, or with the possibility of doing so (note that I am okay with abortions in case of rape for this reason).

What if you weren't solely at fault and the accident was because of you and another driver? However that driver wasn't a match. That is a better analogy.

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

#116

Post by jeffbee »

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-…

C'mon, you are misrepresenting it. The new bill makes it unlawful to have weekend voting except for the last weekend before the election. It ends voting at 9pm, not 10pm. It forbids voting in tents. It relieves city officials from most oversight, empowering county officials instead. It forbids driving three or more people to a polling place, and does not exempt bus drivers even.

It's a ridiculous expansion of restrictions clearly targeting the way city dwellers vote, while trying to leave alone the way rural people vote.

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

#117

Post by MrStonedOne »

6051A86D wrote: post #97
pope_meat wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No.

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

#118

Post by colinmhayes »

lax4ever wrote: post #111
colinmhayes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

So, because the mother doesn't care they are allowed to take a life?

Yes, it's immoral to force someone to support a parasite. Once the child is born(even a bit before that as they can survive outside the womb with modern medicine at some point before birth) the child is longer a parasite since it doesn't need the mothers support to survive.

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

#119

Post by klyrs »

notadev wrote: post #112
klyrs wrote: post #110

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. Le…

I have no particular stance on abortion myself, but speech and bearing arms are constitutionally protected. Is abortion?

Read up on the 9th amendment, protections need not be explicitly mentioned to exist.

> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

This has been reaffirmed in many subsequent rulings.

Edit: but look at that language. "Without excessive government restriction." Sounds like "Congress shall make no law," doesn't it? Constitution doesn't say I can't sue you for exercising your rights, eh? Limitations are for governments.

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

#120

Post by juletide »

beaner wrote: post #60
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?

It is an interesting question. Clearly by the end of the term the baby can be forced out and live. It cannot live independently - but neither can a baby that has been born naturally. It takes like, five years for that. So dependence on the mother is not part of the definition of life. So when does it start? When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother? No answer. Activists will shout "my body" all day but cl…

(1) Women are perfectly capable of supporting policies that have materially misogynistic outcomes. I agree some of the mainstream rhetoric doesn't emphasize this in the interest of pithiness and such, but this strikes me as an odd complaint. (2) You seem to imply that some scientific definition of when life begins would offer a clear cut solution... but whatever we pick involves some kind of value judgment, right? And anyway, e.g. most voters (of all stripes!) in the US support some right to choose in the first trimester and do not support it in the third trimester, so "first trimester abortions should be safe/legal/accessible" seems like a fine place to start, and go from there
Post reply on HN