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

#161

Post by belorn » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

juletide wrote: post #143

beaner wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?…

It is not women vs men. However, anti-choice policies do have outcomes that disproportionately burden women, which is another way of saying such policies are misogynistic, which is... sexism. You can argue sexism only counts as such if there's intent behind it, or you can argue the sexism here is less important than other considerations, but I don't think it's derailing or distracting from an ethical issue to point o…

It seems a little odd to say that anti-choice policies disproportionately burden women when men has no choice at all beyond having half the vote of consent for the initial act of having sex. The whole issue is deeply sexist with very clearly defined gender roles with expectations and enforced obligations.

From an ethically perspective it would be significant if those expectations and obligations could be replaced with voluntary acts in an universal way.

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

#162

Post by pbourke » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #94

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 tha…

> All other red states continue to be.

Yes, due to Roe and against the concerted effort of their Republican politicians. If the Texas law cannot be challenged then Roe is done, and those red states follow Texas’ suit.

What a disingenuous comment.

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

#163

Post by andrewfong » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 11:17 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…

Anec-data, but I've seen pro-lifers both for and against birth control, so perhaps this is some variance here.

In any event, I don't think being against birth control suggests the belief that a fetus deserves the rights of a child is necessarily implies the belief is in bad faith. Or at least, no more so than believing that murder should be a crime but supporting policies that indirectly lead to more murders (e.g. supporting policies that increase poverty or gun violence).

The more interesting gotcha for me is when pro-lifers concede an exception for rape. I don't think they believe a child born of rape is somehow less deserving of life than a broken condom. So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices.

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

#164

Post by orwin » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 12:08 AM 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.

Mmm, actually, are you saying that we should force people to be vegetarian by the law while preventing suffering from chicken and milk cows? Or should we let people to decide by themselves what to eat?

I actually know a farmer who only eat his pigs when they die of old age (he use them to find mushrooms, expensive mushrooms), pigs being very successfull in front of the mirror test and definitely sentient and more self-aware than a 4-year old, i wonder if he took that into consideration.

I for sure don't care, but if i was forced by the law, i would stop eating meat without protesting, so i guess win for the overall suffering and win for the climate? Maybe your church is onto something.

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

#165

Post by orwin » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 12:36 AM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #149

beaner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cynic in me believes that the ambiguity is intentional, because it allows us as adults to have a greater ability to escape the consequences of our actions. (Excepting rape, etc.) I'm pro-choice, it just seems like a truth people don't want to acknowledge.

The choice angle is simple- you choose the act that leads to conception. The pro-abortion side just doesn't like the answer.

Either you're truly pro-life, and that mean no abortion even in the case of rape, or you're into punishing women for having unprotected sex (pro-sexual punishment does sound weird, we should find another word), and only those who chose to have unprotected sex [0] are punished.

My stance are controversial but hear me:

Their is two solutions. First: abortion law as they exist (abortion whenever you want during the first semester + if there is a disease until the middle of the second semester). Pro-lifes don't like this solution, i get it.

No abortion at all, or the real pro-life solution: the woman should get a full salary from the state and her replacement training paid as well when she is pregnant and that state prevent her from functionning. If she is a student, she will receive the median salary of the state she live in, and have a sabbatical, allowing her to return with no penalities. Top medical aid provided free of charge to avoid complication, and if she can't take care of her child, a fully-funded child services will be in charge of finding a foster home once 6 month of breastfeeding (paid, of course) are done.

The only downside left is the lack of career evolution from a working woman who lost 2 year to scale up the corporate ladder, i agree, this is still punishment for unprotected sex, and cesarean can scar the body. I am not a woman, did not go through a pregnancy and childbirth, so a woman knowing this could add a lot more to the idea, but you understand, yes? If the State interfere to protect the foetus, it should do its best to protect the child-bearer for negative consequences of this interference.

[0] And by that i mean: birth control did not work, mister did not pull off quick enough, they wanted to have a kid but someone have had infidelity and now the couple want to split...Lot of nice cases.

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

#166

Post by orwin » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 12:43 AM UTC

option wrote: post #156

azinman2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the right to vote as a US citizen. Every little thing you do to add friction to that disenfranchises such populations. We're not talking about urban, educated people with means. To get an ID you will need other forms of identification, which depending on who you are and what your background is, can mean you have nothing to present. Much has been written on this topic. I encourage you to do a little research…

The way you read this is - hey, we shouldn’t require voter ID. The way I read this is - holy sh*t, the government must rush and make sure all these people can get an Id easily (has nothing to do with voting). I think there is actually an obvious good compromise here - Require Id for voting if and only if 99.5% (should be set by specialists) of county’s population has an Id. If the county doesn’t meet this threshold (…

Yes, this is the clever stance.

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

#167

Post by beerandt » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

orwin wrote: post #165

beerandt wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choice angle is simple- you choose the act that leads to conception. The pro-abortion side just doesn't like the answer.

Either you're truly pro-life, and that mean no abortion even in the case of rape, or you're into punishing women for having unprotected sex (pro-sexual punishment does sound weird, we should find another word), and only those who chose to have unprotected sex [0] are punished. My stance are controversial but hear me: Their is two solutions. First: abortion law as they exist (abortion whenever you want during the firs…

Or if not getting pregnant is that important to you, just don't have sex.

That's the only option for men who want to be sure to avoid legal obligations for the act.

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

#168

Post by beerandt » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

pbourke wrote: post #162

beerandt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

> All other red states continue to be. Yes, due to Roe and against the concerted effort of their Republican politicians. If the Texas law cannot be challenged then Roe is done, and those red states follow Texas’ suit. What a disingenuous comment.

The point is that if it weren't for judicial activism, there might have been a more moderate middle ground reached, and that the perception of that anything more conservative than the status quo is radical is disingenuous.

More conservative than roe or casey is made out to be radical, and based on the laws of the rest of the world, that's absolutely not the case.

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

#169

Post by josephcsible » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #135

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…

We do not, in general, recognize that ordinary people have a legal non-emergency duty to save others. Assuming that a foetus is a child, why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body? If it existed outside her, but required a kidney transplant to live, would she also be legally obligated to give it one? As far as I am aware that procedure is at lot less dangerous/damaging to a womans body than…

There's a difference between not taking action that will save someone, and taking action that will intentionally kill someone. Also, parents have a duty of care towards their own children that doesn't exist between random strangers.

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

#170

Post by josephcsible » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #163

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…

Anec-data, but I've seen pro-lifers both for and against birth control, so perhaps this is some variance here. In any event, I don't think being against birth control suggests the belief that a fetus deserves the rights of a child is necessarily implies the belief is in bad faith. Or at least, no more so than believing that murder should be a crime but supporting policies that indirectly lead to more murders (e.g. su…

> So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices.

I don't think it's that, but rather a realpolitik reason: a new bill that contains such an exception is easier to pass into law.