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

#121

Post by beerandt » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

moxzyros wrote: post #107

bambax wrote: post #59

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. 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.

Even the Catholic view on birth control, which is essentially that it interferes with "putting your life in God's hands", isn't anywhere near it's stance on abortion, which is that life is sacred at the moment of conception.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

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?

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #62

gfodor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The viability standard of Roe v Wade is not about personhood but about physical dependency. In other words, it’s not murder, and is ethical, to pull the plug on someone who’s hooked to your body to survive, if there is no other way to save them. This is a very enlightened stance imo, and inductively implies abortion will one day be both illegal and in low demand.

Abortion isn't analogous to pulling the plug on someone on life support. It's analogous to sending someone on life support on a guillotine. The fetus is violently killed during the process.

Analogies are dumb when it comes to abortion.

The point is if you decide a mother has a right to cut the umbilical at any time, the fetus will die regardless during most phases of pregnancy (the ones where abortion is legal in the US.) So now you get to decide given death is a certainty, what is the proper act. I could be persuaded the current mechanisms are the wrong choice. Would you propose to just cut the cord and let the fetus starve in the womb?

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

#124

Post by MrStonedOne » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

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?

Speech and bearing arms are only constitutionally protected in criminal law this is civil law, which the Constitution doesn't apply to[0]. And the supreme did rule that abortion is constitutionally protected, at least thats my understanding of roe v wade.

So parent's arguments stand, if this law stands, free speech and gun rights could be aborted (hehe) by just making them civil cases and giving people the right to sue.

edit: In fact, democrats have tried to do just that, by giving gun violence victims the right to sue the gun shop and gun manufacture. I (and bernie) have opposed such bills, for the same i (and bernie) oppose this bill. its a shortcut around the constitution that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[0]: its not as simple as this, but thats the jist of it. this is why a civil case can result on the state forcing you to give up money/property without a ruling by a jury, and why the state can force you to pay if you want a jury in such civil cases, but can't in criminal cases. As another example, civil asset forfeiture gives the state the power to take your property without a ruling by a court, let alone a jury, with no need to prove anything, instead requiring you to prove legality. criminal asset forfeiture already exists and requires both of those things, but isn't used in favor of the civil version.

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

#125

Post by ta8902 » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:07 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…

>Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms.

Funny, that's the exact same strawman OP was talking about.

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

#126

Post by tomjen3 » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

collegeburner wrote: post #12

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…

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…

I have seen that argued a lot, but it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny for the general group that claim to hold these views[0]. If that was the case, they would be working to make condoms and BC, especially semi-permanent BC like IUDs, much more widely available and they would work hard (they are trying to save lives here) to ensure excellent sex education. There also wouldn't be exceptions for women who had been raped (terrible fate, but the kid shouldn't be killed for it).

If on the other hand this is about punishing women for having sex, then they would try to prevent access to BC, as it removes the risk of pregnancy, and would have exemption for women who were raped because they didn't do anything worth punishing.

Of course I haven't seen anybody who is against abortions arguing that we should make spare kidney donations mandatory, despite the fact that people (who are, without a doubt, people) die waiting for a transplant. If you are not willing to make that argument, I don't see how you can logically argue against abortion.

[0]: I am not claiming that some individuals don't hold that belief.

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

#127

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

collegeburner wrote: post #12

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…

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. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure.

That's a very weird take on the issue, specifically because I agree with you in many respects, but that is exactly why abortion is a very complex issue.

The fundamental question is "when does individual human life begin?" Yes, pro-lifers believe that it begins at conception, but why should their beliefs take precedence? I don't believe at all that an early embryo/fetus at 6 weeks is "an individual" in the human sense, where abortion would equal murder.

Of course, the problem is that when a fetus does become a full-fledged human is a gray line - pretty much everyone believes it occurs at some point between conception and birth, but where you draw that line is why this is a difficult, complex issue, not the "simple" one you seem to believe it is.

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

#128

Post by beaner » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

juletide wrote: post #120

beaner wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? An…

> Women are perfectly capable of supporting policies that have materially misogynistic outcomes

Yeah that's my point. I don't know why it's an odd complaint. "Men trying to control women's bodies" isn't true and turns an ethical debate into something about sexism, which means we don't get closer to an answer because we're not working on the right things.

> whatever we pick involves some kind of value judgment, right?

This only seems true because it is already the case that the answer affects our lives as human adults having to take action based on the answer in our particular cases. If we lived in some other universe where abortions were impossible (e.g. they always kill the mother for some reason), it seems like we wouldn't have that difficult enough of a time identifying when life begins in the fetus.

What's funny is that because the answer affects us and we won't drill down into narrower ranges to identify specific criteria, this also makes our understanding of all other life more ambiguous. Because if we did identify when frogs, or elephants, or seedlings turn from cells into life, it would have obvious implications for humans.

> first trimester abortions should be safe/legal/accessible" seems like a fine place to start, and go from there

It seems like this is exactly what Texas has done. It went from there.

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

#129

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #56

gfodor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The viability standard of Roe v Wade is not about personhood but about physical dependency. In other words, it’s not murder, and is ethical, to pull the plug on someone who’s hooked to your body to survive, if there is no other way to save them. This is a very enlightened stance imo, and inductively implies abortion will one day be both illegal and in low demand.

Does this imply then that, let's say a mother was in a position where breastfeeding her child was the only way the child would survive (in the wilderness for some reason, for example), that she should be acquitted if she refused to do so and the child died? The baby needed to be hooked on her body to survive.

A mother has a right to refuse to breastfeed but that doesn’t imply that she would be innocent of parental negligence for failing to find an alternative way to take care of the child. Once a child is born to legal guardians there are minimum standards for caregivers.

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

#130

Post by HelloNurse » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 5:09 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…

> 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 matter; what matters is what is.

I understand that the things you believe are facts, and the things others believe are opinions?

Whether abortion is murder is a strictly philosophical question, not a scientific one: there are a lot of facts to consider (beyond religious principles and thinly veiled misogyny) but they are only as relevant and decisive as one considers them.