Abortion is an important issue but hardly the only one.

i never agreed to be brought into this world, i’ll have you know.

man holding a butterfly: is this <flaming>?

Specifically, Ford realizing it was cheaper to pay for crash lawsuits than making everyone's car safer in the days of rear end gas tanks.

I was born in a “conservative state”. For me, it wouldn’t be cultural colonialism but, rather, moving home. For my cousins and friends who are just starting their careers, it’s an opportunity (I didn’t have) to continue to live and work locally.

My assumption is that there are more people in my situation than people motivated to migrate away from their home town with the intent of colonizing other places. Certainly possible my assumption is wrong.

What specifically makes you say this? It seems like one of those "common sense" conclusions that begs to be supported by data. The trend might surprise you. Abortion rates have fallen drastically since Roe v Wade (obviously Roe v Wade didn't itself reduce abortion rates, but improved education and access to birth control has been very effective). Has "hookup culture" also fallen drastically? How are abortions fueling hookup culture if they aren't happening as much?

From Scott Aaronson's blog today: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6518

"Most obviously for me, the continued viability of Texas as a place for science, for research, for technology companies, is now in severe doubt. Already this year, our 50-member CS department at UT Austin has had faculty members leave, and faculty candidates turn us down, with abortion being the stated reason, and I expect that to accelerate."

I work in D politics and don't think TX will be Dem anytime within the next few cycles. But the trend is there; especially if young people move in.

GA is closer IMHO.

FL is slipping away and illustrates this compounding effect that the GOP has engineered.

Florida's GOP SCO-FL (?) just allowed a really gerrymandered CD map put out by DeSantis, a break with norms.

The map is clearly undemocratic IMHO. 20 of 28 are now pretty safe R. That's very lopsided for the perennial swing state. Even trending +3% R, it should be a toss up.

State and local level is the same story, often worse.

More than people moving away, stopping immigration of young people has a big affect. That's big reason my state of Colorado has turned from purple to fairly solid blue.

Attacking women, queer people, non-religious people, POC, makes the state unwelcoming and even dangerous.

Being a bully gives them more power, which allows them to create more levers and enshrine more advantages to this power.

They have set themselves up to rule a divided states of America where they maintain extreme authoritarian power against the absolute majority.

You're also right in that global warming doesn't give a damn.

Sadly again their blocking of even sensible actions is just another example of what should be a minority party by #s literally killing people who have little power over this situation.

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.

Guess which ones brings more revenue?

Do you see companies moving their offices to places where people have better rights, which usually translates into better salaries, better benefits, better working conditions? No. But they spent lots of money moving their operations to places where people have less or no rights at all.

So it's clearly virtue signaling.

US also has laws requiring up to 3 months of leave for having children.

So, if you have a child, the company must accept or pay for your leave, depending on policy, and their health insurance costs for you go up.

Nowdays women have sex with me much earlier in the courtship (generally second date), but they still play hard to get and give a masculine vibe, like they were just brushing their teeth. I can't really blame women doing it, as the high budget movies are portraying the same masculine characters in beutiful female bodies.

Another example that I can provide that I see nowdays is that I was trying to date women in my age range (40), and they are feminine, great to talk to, mature, want to have kids, and talk about being so desparate that they are thinking about just asking a friend to make baby with them to raise up solo, which they know is really really hard. I have a great time talking to them, I just more see them as friends than people I would like to have relationship with.

Im glad I have dual citizenship because It does feel like the next 4 years is going to be a very sharp downturn (socially) in the US.

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.

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.

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.

I suspect most states will end up having pretty level headed laws once this all shakes out in 5 years or so with a few outliers on both sides.

It really is that bad.

The right have been emboldened.

Thomas is no longer afraid to say their goals out loud: they are coming for more rights.

I'm terrified. As a queer person I already feel targeted.

Dehumanization & equating all queer people to pedophiles is a Nazi tactic which allows people to delude & rationalize to themselves that they are actually doing the right thing whilst perpetrating their hate and violence.

Not even going to go on tangent about Thomas' wife. It's the same undeniable b.s. that they espouse at their confirmations: I don't bring my personal (wife's) opinions into rulings (marriage).

Below is my reply, which I am re-writing for context, and I will have to encroach on everyone's trust that what I write below completely represents the original. Whether I am a "moron and/or a monster" I will leave for you all to decide.

I will say, though, that for Americans, the abortion issue is out of the courts and in the purview of federal and state legislatures. We need to have these conversations sooner than later, if not now. There is a real concern about maternal health and freedom, just as there is one about rights to life and protection in utero.

___

I am speaking about the past and present. One should be skeptical of predictions about the future.

The motivation for the decision process you describe is fear. Fear or harm, fear of death. Fear itself is irrational (I do not mean this in a pejorative sense) but powerful emotion, but it is not one that I believe motivates people when they are trying to have children. Pregnancy can have many complications that can be debilitating or even fatal (depression, internal bleeding, sepsis, hormonal dysfunction, and so on), and lack of access to abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy, for example, is only of many factors that would weight against a potential pregnancy. If lack of access over abortion is an overriding fear for women looking to have children, I suspect that fear could just as easily be replaced by other non-abortion-related dangers. Becoming a parent can be scary, and perhaps now isn't the right time. Maybe later.

Also, I want to stress the earlier point I made about living under laws, good or bad. Women bear children because they want them. I believe this to broadly be true, but the case is especially strong in societies where abortion and more importantly contraception are available. Women bear children because they want to raise them, watch them grow, and start families of their own. Should any complications arise from pregnancy, one adapts and lives with them. Despite the risks, which historically had been far graver until very recently, over 7 billion of us exist. I believe that red state or blue state, abortion or no, people will continue to have children, and they will do so in whatever state they are able to raise them. While it is certainly understandable for women, especially if sexually active, who don't yet want to have children to avoid moving to states with outright abortion bans rather than restrictions to the 1st trimester, I doubt it will be an important consideration for those who want to have them.

To your specific point, if laws are so poorly written that they endanger women's lives, such as in ectopic pregnancies, then I expect the laws will change in response to outrage over deaths. Laws that affect people's lives are unavoidable but can unfortunately cause that to happen (e.g. raising speed limits, drug testing requirements, etc.). However, I am not so pessimistic that to believe that no law can be written as a reasonable compromise. And I never would be so pessimistic so as to give up entirely on elected legislatures and instead choose to live under the fiat of judges in hope that their decisions are optimal. There is certainly precedent for courts to make (very recently, in many eyes) stupidly written, poorly reasoned decisions.

So is abortion, and yet, it's 2022, and the leopards are eating our faces.

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.

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.

The first week there we met a family that had also just moved from a northern state and ended up hanging out with them all summer. The kids were super nice, they played with our 1 year old, who had no one else to play with, being new to the area, for hours on end without any fighting whatsoever. Their son, maybe 7, had long red hair "like Shawn White" who he idolized. A few months later, school started. The first week the family showed up at the pool in our complex and he had cut his hair short. We mentioned it and he ran off, clearly holding back tears. His mom said he doesn't want to talk about it, the kids at school had bullied him so bad he wanted to get it cut.

Never made it to CA but left TX to go back home within just a few months. That story wasn't the only reason but there are plenty of others that made it clear to us TX wasn't a good place to raise a kid.

That’s an ironic way of saying you’re pro abortion.

There is a very big elephant in the room for where people are moving. And those people are young. And those people do not have the belief monoculture that has existed prior.

Smaller elephant in the room #2 is that cost pressures and globalism don't care about the opinions of the traditional PMC that has reigned supreme when tech was on the upswing.

Still, 2nd trimester abortions are very uncommon to be legal in Europe. Is there any evidence to suggest that the liberal abortion laws in the US up until today attracted people from Europe to take jobs in the US instead of their home countries with more restrictive abortion laws?

> The Russian sanctions actually surprised me in that a lot of corporations actually pulled out and fast.

Companies either pulled out because they were legally obligated (That's what sanctions are) or they wanted to avoid reputational damage to their brands. Again, rational self interest.

Corporations do not and I'd argue should not take political positions in the way people do.

That is factually inaccurate.

This feels really weird when you think about the general western perception of jesus. In damn near any picture he's got a flow going.

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.

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

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.

Corporations have no self-interest or do not think. Corporations are human artifacts composed of human beings that have specific rules applied to them in the great game in our societies, and tend to behave accordingly. This behavior have patterns that we as humans recognize unsurprisingly as human, because they are composed by humans. A corporation is a as rational as a group of humans can be.

Corporations do not always "act" in their self interest, and we can (and in my opinion should) expect moral obligations from them as we do with humans.

How about with taxes paid there?

German chancelor Olaf Scholz halted $10b Nord Stream 2 project and plans to stop fossils import from Russia to cut cash flow to Putin's regime. Other repercussions' goal is similar: to stop indirectly funding Putin's invasion.

Everyone paying Russia could just "stay put" but this wouldn't be inaction.

What's been produced so far is an article from 2005 (above) about a handful of extreme conservative groups, which has clearly gone nowhere in the past 17 years and a video of Ben Shapiro, whose only job is to say provocative bullshit.

With that being said, abortion should be legal at the federal level. By your logic, this isn't a political statement.

So if you admit he's willing to overthrow the precedent, and you agree that some states would then make those behaviors illegal, then how can you square that circle in your brain to claim it's scaremongering?

What I meant was taking sides on divisive hot button issues is fraught with peril. The probability of blowback is high.

Even if a large proportion of employees held a particular political position, I'd imagine only a small number of activist employees would be disgruntled by the company choosing to stay out of it.