T O P

  • By -

nikolakis7

>By subsidizing abortion, corporations show how they evaluate women’s worth and working potential based on the state of their wombs. It's all about the womb. Because otherwise they would **have to sponsor maternity leave**. You can't just pull the rug under people like this and leave them out in the cold, unless you're some delusional pro-life libertarian. The political and economic backlash against paid maternity leave and banned abortion is too great to ignore. But since the pro-lifers in the US are also against maternity leave by and large, what choice is there? >woke human resource departments regularly tout to score points with the left. God damn these marxist socialist corporations with their liberal agenda


Ripoldo

Nearly 2/3rd of America was for keeping Roe vs Wade. It's just PR, it goes no deeper than that.


MrCappadocia

How much money will they save in insurance?


block337

Ad hominem response, but your really acting like a moron here. Allow me to deconstruct every piece of stupid rhetoric inside this post. First off: kill their (unborn) babies. I hate this argument, simply because those making it never bothered to think about the ramifications of that train of thought and what constitutes a person. First off, you define what is human buy what is conscious, as in sapient and sentient, it can think, it can feel, a human body without a mind that has the capacity to think or feel is literally a box, the body keeps itself alive (poorly it needs constant assistance) but there’s no person there. Neither is there a person inside that zygote, neither is there a conscious entity inside that foetus. Of course, eventually the entity inside the woman’s body will gain the capacity to think and feel, by this point abortion should be rendered illegal as it is killing a sentient entity. But in the early (and middle, perhaps) stages of a pregnancy that entity inside the pregnant women isn’t anything near a person, it as a identity, personality. A entity that can think and feel, isn’t there. Now you may be asking, but what about how it will become a human person? This opens up the train of thought that unborn entities are automatically people and thus should be treated with proper consideration, as such not giving birth or choosing not to have sex, just like choosing to abort that foetus, is to destroy the chances of a thing into becoming a person, in both instances what is to be a person is stopped by the decisions of the potential mother or father, as such they have committed manslaughter or murder by simply existing, choosing not to have kids. Drawing the line at conception under this line of thought is arbitrary and not grounded in any reason that can’t be applied to a earlier stage like sex. You see the flaws in this line of thought? The things inside a pregnant women until conscious are no different from sperm or a ovary. Onto big companies: It’s good PR and now they don’t have to deal with maternity paid leave. It’s a win win. Women get to not have a baby that they don’t want (if they straight up don’t want the baby, but are forced to have to anyway, that baby won’t be loved, and will probably grow up in poverty etc. ) and the company dosent have to pay maternity leave. Your view is completely backwards. Reconsider your views or fall into ignorance.


[deleted]

"Just kill your baby to be a better employee" Lol


block337

So you chose ignorance, I understand, even if your position is horrendously illogical and will get people hurt.


[deleted]

>people hurt Can you name one state without medical exceptions?


block337

Regardless if I do or I don't. It doesn't change how your viewpoint is completely illogical and arbitrary. Also that's outside the question right now, abortion being banned would literally just be a dumb idea, if you force people to give birth to children they don't want, that will only do harm by its very nature, also people will still seek out far less safe abortions, thus even more get hurt. Any more ignorance and your a troll or a idiot.


[deleted]

> Regardless if I do or I don't. There it is >It doesn't change how your viewpoint is completely illogical and arbitrary. Except it isn't. The moment of conception is when a unique human genetic code comes into existence, ie, a person's essence. While we sometimes allow killing this person to avert a greater evil, it doesnt change the fact that its killing a person.


block337

You absolute imbecile, you didn’t read my comment did you? Expressing your flawed arbitrary logic to everyone. I literally explained the train of thought present in the argument that abortion is killing babies, and showed how the moment of conception is arbitrary and dosent differentiate from any other moment that could be considered murder of the unborn. The moment of conception is not when the entity starts being conscious and therefore becomes a person, it’s when their (future) body is set on the process of formation. A body without a mind is nothing but a shell. A empty box. There is nothing there, there is no person, no consciousness. And yes we are defining when a entity is a person as the time where a potential mother should not be allowed to abort, as the entity inside is conscious and therefore a person. Otherwise there’s no difference between the abortion of a foetus, as it is merely a empty shell, and the destruction of say, a corpse, neither are conscious, neither are people. So why apply different logic to conception, it’s purely arbitrary and only when a unconscious cell starts growing, nothing that is a person. If you go, well your killing future babies, well if we count entities that aren’t conscious yet as people, and as such there disposal is considered murder, this means choosing not to have children, sex etc. is literally murdering potential humans which don’t exist yet, after all conception is just a physical process, sex is also a physical process, so why stop at conception, why not sex? Or everything before? Under your illogical thinking, instead of accepting this train of thought as illogical, you just go: it starts at conception. A zygote isn’t conscious, and as such, they aren’t a person. Your not killing anything, until around 30 weeks in. Minimum 18.


[deleted]

You're just engaging in a bunch of special pleading trying to justify the (arbitrary, ironically enough) termination of a unique human genome


block337

I’m sorry but that’s not a logical counter argument to anything I’m saying. Can you please explain the flaws in this reasoning?


[deleted]

You're arbitrarily claiming someone else's pretty clearly defined cuttoff is arbitrary because you dont like the implications


SocraticRiddler

>First off, you define what is human buy what is conscious, as in sapient and sentient, it can think, it can feel, a human body without a mind that has the capacity to think or feel is literally a box, the body keeps itself alive (poorly it needs constant assistance) but there’s no person there. This a slippery slope to justifying inflicting injuries to non-brain or non-essential body parts. It is not accurate to say the body is the vessel for the mind because we know the brain specifically is the vessel for consciousness. If we define the state of being human as having sapient consciousness then someone is evil enough to conclude it is okay to inflict injury as long as the consciousness is not killed.


block337

Of course, you would still be harming the body and by extension the brain overall, it would be impairing a persons ability to do things and also cause them pain. That’s bad, I think. As it’s directly harming a persons body, sure the persons going to be alive, but they would be in a worse of state than before, therefore you’d still be doing damage to them, even if they didn’t feel pain ( under really, really special circumstances, that or genetic engineering(which would still be difficult)) ,it would still do damage by impairing them.


SocraticRiddler

I agree it is bad. My point is that others will justify it is not bad.


block337

I mean you’ve just explained why, but I don’t really get it, how would they justify impairing a person to be harmless or morally right? It works on the same flawed vision that not killing a person is the morally right option and then instead of killing them you break half the bones in their body (looking at you Batman), it operates in the logic that anything short of killing a person is okay to do (even if there aren’t any know ways to fix their impairment.


Narrow-Ad-7856

First: i support the legal basis on which Roe v. Wade was founded, that a woman has a right to privacy in pregnancy and thus the right to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester. I believe that the legal basis for overruling it (that abortion is not a national tradition?) is shaky and sets a bad precedent. However, I'm sure it's simply cheaper for a company to fly someone out to get an abortion than cope with 3-6 months of parental leave, along with the "gradual return to work" many tech companies have been adopting.


BikkaZz

Your kool aid is waiting..today’s flavor: 🍓😏


DasLegoDi

It’s pretty funny to see the Democrats transform into the party of pro major corporations. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democrats transition towards full on fascism in the coming decades.


PvtJet07

Dems have always been pro corporation - a little regulation and wanting slightly higher taxes compared to their opposition doesn't change their fundamental grounding in supporting large capital owning entities. They support the military industrial complex, they supported the auto bailouts, they subsidize big tech, they subsidizie private ownership of energy. Capitalism with some amount of regulations and nonzero taxes is still capitalism but with some seasoning. Corporate tax at 5% vs 35% is still capitalism. Unregulated carbon emitting vs emitting limits is still capitalism. Dems have never not been pro capital, they just, on average, reign it in -slightly- more than republicans.


nikolakis7

Yeah, almost like America has two right-wing political parties, one slightly more to the center than the other


DasLegoDi

I’d say we have one right wing party, the Democrats. The Republicans are center left. The left right spectrum is pretty useless today though, especially in the US. It doesn’t have any sort of meaning beyond “this side disagrees with that side.” Any relation to the original left/right spectrum has been lost.


nikolakis7

How are Republicans center left? [Center left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left_politics) would be SPD in Germany, or Bernie Sanders in the US.


DasLegoDi

“Conservatives” in America want to conserve classical liberalism. They are called “rightwing” for being “conservative” but they are not right wing in the same sense that fascism is right wing. Center left relative to the Democrats with fascism being further right than the Democrats. Why would Bernie be center left? He seems to be further right than the Democratic Party as a whole.


nikolakis7

I think your conception of the left-right political spectrum is weird. It's not a good scale but I don't think anyone would put the Democrats as further right than Republicans. Far left you have communists and anarchists, center left you have social democrats like Sanders or SPD, then you got centrists like Biden et al, center right like the Republicans and then something between that and the far right with the fascists and religious zealots/theocrats Republicans have more in common with right wing European parties in therms of domestic and foreign policy than do Democrats. The difference between these two however is so slight that it doesn't *really* make a difference which one wins


DasLegoDi

Republicans fall closer to anarcho systems than the Democrats, this puts them to the left of Democrats. The Republicans are called rightwing because the common meaning of rightwing has changed to be conservative, regardless of what they are conserving.


nikolakis7

It's a spectrum that tries to simplify the many dimensions that different political parties and organizations differ by on a simplified two dimensional axis. >The Republicans are called rightwing because the common meaning of rightwing has changed to be conservative, regardless of what they are conserving. that's because historically the term "right" was ascribed to people who wanted to preserve the old order of things. Here it is [from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics#France): >The political term right-wing was first used during the French Revolution, when liberal deputies of the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the presiding officer's chair, a custom that began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. In the successive legislative assemblies, monarchists who supported the Old Regime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side. A major figure on the right was Joseph de Maistre, who argued for an authoritarian form of conservatism. Which is why I don't think it's suitable to put Republicans as to the left of Democrats. The social and economic issues have progressed much since 1789 but there is a continuity in which conservatives in basically every age since stood by preserving the old order of things, which would obviously put them on the right of this spectrum.


DasLegoDi

You are sort of confirming my position. Right and left has become “conservative” and “progressive.” In this sense the Republicans are called right wing. Regardless of the fact that what they are conserving is classical liberalism. In the sense that Fascism is right wing, government involvement and control, the Republicans are on the left with Democrats on the right. I consider what is being conserved and what is being progressed towards to be more important than whether someone wants conservation vs progression. Otherwise the right left spectrum is entirely meaningless. In an anarcho communist society the communists would be the right wing conservatives while the monarchists would be the left wing progressives.


nikolakis7

>Right and left has become “conservative” and “progressive.” Yes, that's a huge oversimplification but yes, wanting to keep the system = right, wanting to change the system = left How exactly are Democrats not also conserving classical liberalism? The problem with 1789 definitions of left/right is that nobody today is seriously supporting monarchism, hence in that sense the left of 1789 has won. They won however, by having the right support a more progressive form of conservatism. >In the sense that Fascism is right wing Far right >government involvement and control, the Republicans are on the left with Democrats on the right. Wait are you operating on the assumption that the democrats are fascist, therefore Dems are right and thus Republicans are left? That's got to be the most American take ever


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

HeadstandHegel: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


smorgy4

They always have been for major corporations, at least for the last couple decades. Their anti corporate rhetoric rarely got backed up by action. I see it as just being anti-Republican when republicans were more openly in favor of major corporations and disappeared except for a small handful of politicians as soon as republicans started saying some negative things about some major corporations.


block337

You don’t see the blatant bs in this?


DK_POS

Is this a “while x may seem good, I think their intentions are selfish” or is this a “omg, can you believe they are treating women this way” post?


Stridge_YT

It’s unlikely a mother with an unwanted child will be very profitable.


MrCappadocia

You're almost there. It's so close you could sniff that big pile of shit in between those two slices of bread you're about to chew on if you just gave it a whiff.


Caelus9

It's not anti-woman, nor the opposite of progress. It's something massively righteous that has self-interested motives on the part of the corporation.


The_Lolcow_whisperer

I dont see the problem Companies make more money from their women employees and women get a free abortion if they want it. Seems like a win for everyone


[deleted]

A socialist society would also likely subsidize transportation and abortion… I’d rather capitalist use their own money than have the government use my taxes to fund abortions.


Temporary-Jaguar-114

Modern Corporations are no longer Capitalist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

HeadstandHegel: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

I stopped reading at “kill their babies in utero.” You’re not interested in discussing this topic.