[lettergram]

I wonder if this is a business decision that has shown it could be profitable. I can imagine people without kids work more hours. Then again, they have a lot less to lose.

Interesting business decision.

The question I have, some states are going to call abortion murder and charge it as such. Is Google aiding and abetting a homicide?

[JKCalhoun]

I assumed it was a decision relating to a woman's reproductive rights. To suggest it is a business decision is sort of debasing?

[KMag]

> I assumed it was a decision relating to a woman's reproductive rights.

But, you realize it's largely a question of axioms, right? Two sides are talking past each other because they take their axioms for granted as self-evident.

It's simply a question of a woman's reproductive rights if you take it as axiomatic that a fetus isn't a person.

I don't take it as axiomatic that personhood begins at conception, but if I did, it would all of a sudden be a question of balancing the rights of two people instead of just the woman's reproductive rights. We don't have a clean scientific definition of personhood. The fetus is genetically distinct and is essentially a parasitic larval human. Scientifically, it's just tissue, but so am I. The real question is if it's a person, and that's a legal and moral question that is largely axiomatic.

The reality is that very few of us have a problem with aborting an unviable fetus or early abortion in cases of rape, very few of us support aborting a perfectly healthy fetus minutes before birth, and hard science doesn't provide us many clear lines somewhere in the middle.

[wonnage]

It's not "largely a question of axioms" and no amount of confidently assert-while-questioning will make it so

[KMag]

Personhood simply isn't a scientific question. There's no objective scientific criteria for personhood.

Maybe it's purely a legal question, but that's a problem given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

If it's not scientific, not legal, and not axiomatic, then what is it?

[jimkleiber]

I'd argue mostly emotional, us projecting our different emotional experiences on each other and wanting them to feel how we feel regarding the same things.

I also believe it has scientific and legal and axiomatic components, just feel quite confident it has to do more with the fear, anger, guilt, shame, and other emotions we feel and attach to things.

[KMag]

I'd agree with that, but unfortunately, that makes it even harder for maximalists on either side to communicate.

[albntomat0]

How else would you describe the different views of each side regarding the moral worth of a fetus?

[sJ646U9k6c6gME9]

For-profit companies don’t care about anyone’s rights. To believe otherwise is naive.

[tjr225]

Google cares about attracting and retaining smart people. Smart people generally respect reproductive rights. So I guess in some ways you are correct, but not in the way your response to the person you are responding to would imply.

What is interesting is that I guess the average google employee is in a good enough position in life to either afford birth control, get an abortion if they need one, or simply figure out how to make an unwanted pregnancy a good situation for their family. So I’m not really sure how this helps their employees other than making them look like they care about the most recent dramatic thing.

[jhawk28]

The split of pro/against is really close to 50/50. If you think that the smart people are only on one side or that only one side has "good" arguments, then you are living in a bubble. The argument over abortion was going on before Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade only prevented legislation from finding a solution.

[rwalle]

Sorry, the one who is living in a bubble is you. I wouldn't be surprised if over 80% of Google employees support abortion rights. There are many ways to show that Google employees (or generally in the tech industry) are much more liberal than the average US citizen.

[lettergram]

Here’s a citation: https://application.marketsight.com/app/ItemView.aspx?Shared...

Depends what you mean really, as much as 60% are against abortion after a fetus can feel pain (debated: 7-28 weeks), with another 20% undecided and only 20% support abortion.

Most people just don’t know how to have an informed discussion.

What overturning Roe really does is allow states to set the threshold. Roe prescribed a method of determining whether an abortion was legal — “viability”.

Now you can have Colorado having after birth abortions (seriously legislated) and Texas banning abortions after heart beat and Alabama banning all abortions.

[thatnerdyguy]

Support for overturning Roe is actually around 30%

[asveikau]

This is the thing that our "two sides to every argument" political discourse distorts. Many issues don't poll at 50/50, but perception is often that they are 50/50.

[refurb]

Pro-choice vs pro-life is pretty evenly split.

Even on the pro-choice side there is a lot of variance on when abortion should be restricted (similar to how Europe restricts abortions the closer to full gestation). Same on the pro-life side, views aren’t binary.

Considering most people don’t understand why Roe v Wade was overturned, I’m not sure opinions on whether it should have been mean much, since belief of what that means is all over the place.

[stjohnswarts]

It's 70/30 and you know it. Americans support abortion in some form or another at 70%. The MAGA base do not, and they want other things like gay marriage, gay sex, and birth control also declared illegal.

[betwixthewires]

I've never met a person who thinks birth control should be illegal. I am sure they're out there, but this "they're coming for your morning after pill next" is scaremongering. Gay sex is probably the same. Gay marriage I think you're probably right.

[Brian-Puccio]

> The split of pro/against is really close to 50/50.

I’ve searched and I cannot find data that say half of America wants abortion made completely illegal (as it is in several states right now and will be in more shortly due to trigger laws).

Can you please share where you get your 50/50 split from?

> Roe v Wade only prevented legislation from finding a solution.

Roe only? Roe made safe abortions available to millions — it reshaped society.

If the argument against Roe is that fertilized embryos are killed, then we need to make sure in-vitro fertilization is stopped where abortion is as well.

As one anti-abortion politician said “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman.”

[betwixthewires]

The argument around roe is quite simply that it was an overreach of constitutional authority by the federal government. Now individual states, the people of them, can decide how they want to govern themselves. That's all that's changed.

[tjr225]

> The split of pro/against is really close to 50/50.

I don’t believe you and I think you’re the one in the bubble.

Your turn.

Also; did you even read my comment before replying to it? Come on, brother. It is obvious that I am talking about Google employees.

[ra7]

> The split of pro/against is really close to 50/50.

It’s not 50/50 at Google or any of the big tech companies.

[jollybean]

Yes, it's important for people to realize the split is closer to 50/50 nation wide, some people forget that, but in tech, it's definitely not 50/50 and that's relevant as well.

[kibwen]

"As of March 2022, a broad majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade (61%) and just over one-third (36%) support it. Opposition is highest among Democrats (74%), including a majority (56%) who strongly oppose overturning Roe. Most independents (61%) also oppose a Roe overturn."

https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-oppose-overturning-roe-v...

[saxonww]

It's not quite that simple, and it's also not 50/50 (right now).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

There are a lot of numbers here. In short, while it has been 50/50-ish for a while, it wasn't in the 90s, and it's not right now. More people, when asked for an opinion, think abortion should be legal than not. And by about a 5-3 or 2-1 margin, more people think and have thought that Roe should be left alone, not overturned.

So I see this as a broadly unpopular decision.

[gbear605]

It’s about 70/30 nation wide, and in tech probably about 95/5.

[cultofmetatron]

50% of the country are of below average intelligence so yes.

[arroz]

For-profit companies are ruled by people, not robots, so it depends.

[aaomidi]

Sure, but having stressed employees doesn't make a profitable company.

[JKCalhoun]

I disagree.

[betwixthewires]

Everything a publicly held corporation does is a business decision, it's naive to pretend otherwise.

[stjohnswarts]

That is the next move on their part to make it premeditated murder. If you know evangelicals like I do, you know that I'm not joking.

[gadflyinyoureye]

Possibly. Now the fun will begin if when the Feds stake a claim via the Commerce Clause to make inter-state abortion travel a right. This could end run Roe's overturn because the Feds could say that a State not allowing abortions will affect the price of abortions much like the Feds said you can't hold back corn grown on your farm to feed your livestock because that would prevent the corn from going to market at a market set rate.

[jmgao]

Kavanaugh's concurring opinion said this:

> Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause.

[hotpotamus]

Didn't Kavanaugh also state that Roe was settled precedent? And anyway even if he actually means what he says this time, do you think the right will be satisfied with this outcome? Or when the time comes will they replace him with a judge who will find that the constitution does in fact find that a state can bar a resident from traveling to another state for an abortion?

[UnpossibleJim]

True but Thomas opened up, in his opinion explicitly, the line to legally challenge same sex marriage and legal contraception. Same sex marriage only recognized in one state but not another opens all sorts of issues when it comes to interstate travel as far as communal assets, marital rights during hospital visits and death rights, and insurance claims.

[gadflyinyoureye]

I think there are (at least) two things on this topic. The majority opinion didn't agree with Thomas (no one signed on to it). Second, event under Thomas' opinion, the question becomes one of shaky Constitutional footing. If these "rights" are not really Constitutional, the issue needs to move to Congress. There is nothing that prevents Congress from crafting a law to explicitly allow anything you listed.

Also, it could be that better argumentation is needed to seat something as a right. Take gay marriage as an example. If we solely describe it as a contract (not a religious rite), then you can probably lay access to gay marriage within the Commerce clause. Married couples move around. We can't have their marriages suddenly annulled by moving within the US. We don't allow that to happen to other contracts. Yes it might require a destination wedding, but the couple will comeback with all the rights an privileges thereof.

[nradov]

While I support marriage equality, it seems like fundamentally the wrong issue. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people.

Currently civil marriage is bundled up with other legal issues like immigration, child custody, income taxes, and medical care decisions. But there's no fundamental reason other than tradition why those things need to be coupled. They could all be handled through separate contracts or elective registries.

[sofixa]

> Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people

That doesn't make much sense. So in order to get basic rights that come out of marriage/civil union like hospital visits, power of attorney, inheritance, child support, alimony, splitting assets and children in case of divorce etc. one would need to involve lawyers and sign one-off contracts that cover everything? Sounds like a collosal waste of time and money.

[UnpossibleJim]

I think that's fine, and by that logic religious institutions can avoid taxes by following charitable institution policies and tax regulations. That would keep a lot of the religious scam artists out of the water and money that says it's going to go somewhere good, going somewhere good. But I think we all know at least 1/2 of America's heads would explode.

What American government should do and what American government does are fundamentally different things and that ship has sailed. No different than what priests, teachers and actors should do.

[landemva]

People can do what they want through voluntary contracts with each other. If marriage is a right, then we don't need government license to practice the right.

[sterlind]

I'm not so sure. say that Planned Parenthood operates shuttles to abortion clinics out of state. then Mississippi makes it a crime to operate any business within the state that facilitates abortion.

that would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce, but I could imagine the Court upholding Mississippi's ban, since it only concerns businesses that operate there.

of course, this would run straight into the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision that ended racial discrimination in hotels.

[zdragnar]

Setting aside the topic of abortion, that would be one precedent I would absolutely love to see the court overthrow. It was a terrible decision in the first place (wheat, not corn, IIRC) and the commerce clause is far too abused as a result.

[betwixthewires]

I hope to see that happen particularly because I'd love to see the supreme court overturn that commerce clause ruling (I forget the case but I'm familiar with it) because it is clearly nonsense. But any state law restricting travel to another state for abortion would be unconstitutional, yes, no state can pass a law criminalizing behavior in another state, thankfully.

[dillondoyle]

What about 'aid and abet' the person to get there? Or allowing crazy civil lawsuits that evidently are a constitutional 'gotcha'?

[betwixthewires]

Assisting someone in crossing state lines would be pretty well covered by the constitution, the federal government is the only authority capable of regulating cross state movement and interstate commerce, period.

Do you have any examples or possibilities for a constitutional gotcha under these circumstances?

[dillondoyle]

Some texas-style rigmarole.

I'm genuinely asking as I'm not an attorney.

My guess would be something like give each citizens in __ state the power to sue __ for assisting someone to commit a "murder" or "crime of life," whatever insane definition they put into law.

Making "civil suits by private citizens the exclusive avenue of enforcement."

And grants a bounty to encourage this.

Further placing 100% of the burden on the person being sued to prove their innocence (and pay legal fees); doesn't matter the uber driver was just dropping someone off at the airport. Whereas the state would have to prove the crime.

it's the threat, the time, the money, and the inconvenience which creates the deterrence & fear that they want.

No matter how baseless it might be, this whole 'gotcha' is that the Supreme Court won't intervene because - and this is where legal understanding could have nuances - each victim is unique (person being sued civily), and that the relief would be from unique individuals and not the state. SCOTUS "ruling that the providers could not bring suit against the classes of state judges and clerks or the state Attorney General"

[ed25519FUUU]

Or Congress could just pass a law.

[Brian-Puccio]

Obama in 2007: first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, essentially codifying Roe

Obama in 2009 (the same year he had a supermajority in the legislature): eh, that’s not so important

I have zero faith in Democrats in Congress to actually do this and all of the Republicans in Congress are vocally (or tacitly) opposed to it.

Clinton’s VP pick was an anti-choice Democrat.

I doubt there will be a federal law allowing for first trimester abortions on demand for at least a decade.

[whateveracct]

Calling what Obama had a "supermajority" is revisionist history. At best, it was like 20 working days of exactly 60 votes (e.g. due to the Al Frank stuff). If even one Dem didn't go along with it (which for a somewhat nuanced issue like abortion back in 2009 - definitely a possibility) even then it wasn't possible.

So acting like there was some all-powerful supermajority is ignorant at best, misinformation at worst.

[dillondoyle]

Won't happen unless we somehow get 10 new Dems probably with 2 to spare (or primary centrist Dems)

[djur]

The Feds don't need to rely on Wickard or any Commerce Clause jurisprudence in regards to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities clause.

[GrabbinD33ze69]

A company the size of google constantly makes decisions that aren't immediately profitable, or will possibly never be profitable in the first place if they believe it will improve PR.

[trhway]

wrt. business decision. I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too. Even may be some forms of contraception. That will have more and more negative impact on that group of employees who would need such services. Also family planning becomes very dented at the "planning" part as getting pregnant one would have to accept the much higher risk of having to carry to terms even if say early genetic testing would show some serious defects, and that may result in delaying of the decision to get pregnant, less pregnancies overall, etc. especially for people who favors planning and consequences estimation based approach to live. That all would result in more stressed employees and lesser number of happy families, and that would negatively affect productivity.

(Note: i'm for abortion rules based on sentience level - i think that sentience level of cats/dogs/pigs is where we shouldn't be able to end the life at will while say fish level is ok, chicken is still ok though feels a bit uneasy, and that means as far as i understand about 3, may be 4 months cut-off for abortion in my view (incest and serious genetic defects a bit more complicated, and i think it warrants somewhat later cut-off))

[nyolfen]

> I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too.

do you have an actual reason for thinking this will happen? this is detached from reality, both of these procedures are meant to create babies which are carried to term, which is the fundamental goal of pro-life policies

[trhway]

At everyday level - dismissing extra fertilized eggs is killing new life according to the "life-at-conception". And IVF, contraception, eggs freezing, etc. gives more power/freedom to women which is abomination to the conservative forces. And it isn't some utility level power/freedom like guns or speech, it is the most fundamental power domain for any biological life - the power to determine the genetic makeup of the next generation of the species.

At the deep biological level - the fundamental goal of pro-life policies is to enforce r-selection, ie. more random based, whereis pro-choice is K-selection, ie. more managed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory), and like the abortion the IVF, egg freezing, contraception, etc. are all enemies of r-selection while they are tools of K-selection.

[nyolfen]

you should try talking to somebody who believes these things instead of projecting darwinian strategy fantasies onto them

[trhway]

it would be pointless. Most people don't recognize their deep internal biological drivers, and by its nature the

>darwinian strategy fantasies

are effects emerging at biological species [sub]population levels, not at an individual level.

For example, you may have noticed that statistically speaking prochoice people and their children are more educated while having less children than the prolifers. That is a typical manifestation of K- vs r-selection differences. The opening of "Idiocracy" is a nice funny commentary on that.

[trhway]

Also one can notice that the slight birth rate increase in the developed countries in the recent 2-3 decades came with the slight decrease in IQ while one the child policy in China resulted in the IQ increase - classic K/r.

[nyolfen]

k-selection doesn't vote, and this entire event is the outcome of judicial review. this is like talking to an animist about the forest, you are mistaking the result for the agent. the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist, so i don't know why you even bother with presenting an argument.

[thatnerdyguy]

You wouldn't euthanize your dog or cat if it had some end of life condition and in pain everyday?

[trhway]

i would. That why i said that incest, serious genetic defects and the likes would warrant a later cut-off, definitely into cats/dogs/pigs level of sentience and may be in very serious cases even into monkey like level of sentience, though that is pushing as it starts to become closer to human euthanasia which is really tough and much more complex subject, and personally and as society we are definitely not able to handle it right.