9 ms·

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 le

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 4y ago
I assumed it was a decision relating to a woman's reproductive rights. To suggest it is a business decision is sort of debasing?
- sJ646U9k6c6gME9 4y ago
  For-profit companies don’t care about anyone’s rights. To believe otherwise is naive.
  - arroz 4y ago
    For-profit companies are ruled by people, not robots, so it depends.
  - tjr225 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
      - cultofmetatron 4y ago
        50% of the country are of below average intelligence so yes.
      - stjohnswarts 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        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.
        stjohnswarts 4y ago
        How many devout evangelicals and catholics have you met? BC condemnation are in the majority of those religions.
        mynameisash 4y ago
        > this "they're coming for your morning after pill next" is scaremongering. Gay sex is probably the same. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion literally calls for reconsidering (ie, overturning) Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same sex relationships), and Obergefell (same sex marriage). It's perfectly clear that this is exactly what a not insignificant number of conservatives want to do. How is this scaremongering ?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    I disagree.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    Sure, but having stressed employees doesn't make a profitable company.
- KMag 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
    It's not "largely a question of axioms" and no amount of confidently assert-while-questioning will make it so
    - albntomat0 4y ago
      How else would you describe the different views of each side regarding the moral worth of a fetus?
    - KMag 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  Everything a publicly held corporation does is a business decision, it's naive to pretend otherwise.
gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
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.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  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.
- ed25519FUUU 4y ago
  Or Congress could just pass a law.
  - Brian-Puccio 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
GrabbinD33ze69 4y ago
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 4y ago
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))
- thatnerdyguy 4y ago
  You wouldn't euthanize your dog or cat if it had some end of life condition and in pain everyday?
  - trhway 4y ago
    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.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  > 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
stjohnswarts 4y ago
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.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

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

sJ646U9k6c6gME9 4y ago
For-profit companies don’t care about anyone’s rights. To believe otherwise is naive.
- arroz 4y ago
  For-profit companies are ruled by people, not robots, so it depends.
- tjr225 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
    - cultofmetatron 4y ago
      50% of the country are of below average intelligence so yes.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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.
        stjohnswarts 4y ago
        How many devout evangelicals and catholics have you met? BC condemnation are in the majority of those religions.
        mynameisash 4y ago
        > this "they're coming for your morning after pill next" is scaremongering. Gay sex is probably the same. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion literally calls for reconsidering (ie, overturning) Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same sex relationships), and Obergefell (same sex marriage). It's perfectly clear that this is exactly what a not insignificant number of conservatives want to do. How is this scaremongering ?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I disagree.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  Sure, but having stressed employees doesn't make a profitable company.
KMag 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
  It's not "largely a question of axioms" and no amount of confidently assert-while-questioning will make it so
  - albntomat0 4y ago
    How else would you describe the different views of each side regarding the moral worth of a fetus?
  - KMag 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
betwixthewires 4y ago
Everything a publicly held corporation does is a business decision, it's naive to pretend otherwise.

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago

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.

zdragnar 4y ago
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.
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
Or Congress could just pass a law.
- Brian-Puccio 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.

GrabbinD33ze69 4y ago

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 4y ago

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))

thatnerdyguy 4y ago
You wouldn't euthanize your dog or cat if it had some end of life condition and in pain everyday?
- trhway 4y ago
  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.
nyolfen 4y ago
> 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

stjohnswarts 4y ago

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.