HN Explorer

Amazon, Meta, Google and more will pay for abortion, but not birth

9 points by nikolqy ↗ HN
Some of the biggest companies in America will pay you literal cash to go travel and get an abortion in a state where it’s legal, but won’t pay you more money if you decide to keep the baby. This is beyond insane. Where are the people in tech that are fighting back against this?

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?

31 comments

[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] thread
ss108
You're going to have elaborate about what these policies are and also what you think they should be doing.

> but won’t pay you more money if you decide to keep the baby.

It sounds like you think they should give people pay increases if they have children. Of course, they also offer parental leave, and arguably lose money every time one of their employees has a baby, so if that's what you want them to do, it makes no sense.

To be clear, I'm not proposing they have some nefarious economic purpose in paying employees to fly to get abortions. I think the companies genuinely view it as a healthcare benefit, and most of their employees genuinely feel that it should be a fundamental Federal right.

> Where are the people in tech that are fighting back against this?

Who would bother, aside from people with serious moral qualms about abortion?

nikolqy
I mean this isn’t just some majority that would be okay with this. Surely there are professionals at big tech companies who will speak out against this, just like Google’s liberal bias etc.
ss108
> I mean this isn’t just some majority that would be okay with this.

Says who, based on what data?

I feel like it's pretty clear that most educated people in the US of working age are either centrist or left of center politically, and that, accordingly, for the most part, groups of educated people in the US tend to have a "liberal bias".

I don't see what basis there is to argue that these companies should not provide a perk that a significant percentage of its workforce wants. I also think the term "bias" is misplaced; there is no duty on the part of these companies to resist culturally skewing as their employees skew. We can speak of biased media because, ideally, journalists should be as objective as possible, but that logic doesn't apply to, e.g., Amazon.

rsclient
This is all true -- as a parent at a big high-tech company, we get excellent benefits for our kids. There's health insurance, dental insurance, paid parental leave for both parents, subsidized day care, and more.
jelliclesfarm
Why is this ‘insane’?

A woman’s body is her property. A fetus is part of the woman’s body. Whatever medical procedure she does with her body is her right. And companies are willing to provide for her medical care.

[dead] nikolqy
dragonwriter
> The fetus is a human who has the right to their body as well.

An intruder is a human who has a right to their own body, but if they are in your house without your consent, you can evict them.

But, apparently, not if they are in your womb.

nikolqy
You can’t kill them though. People have the right to life, it’s even international law. It’s not an intruder if you expected it and 100% had the full power to stop it. Reckless behavior is no excuse for abortion. Just like reckless driving. You don’t support reckless driving that causes death, so why support reckless sex?
dragonwriter
> You can’t kill them though.

You can remove them from your house and let them starve on the street when they wanted to eat the food from your refrigerator.

But apparently not if they literally were consuming your body.

moistly
The fetus is not a "people" and you're an absolutely irredeemable idiot if you think reckless behaviour is the sole cause of the desire for abortion.

"Girl, 11, pregnant with twins after being ‘raped by her stepfather’ demands an abortion"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18994366/girl-11-pregnant-twin...

quantified
Pretty reckless of her to be born into that family, don't you think? Also pretty reckless to miscarry in the wrong way, elsewhere in the news.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
quantified
You can remove unwanted tumors and organs. Is your body sovereign or not?
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
jleyank
No you can kill them in stand your ground states just fine.
ss108
For the record, I think both you and the person you're replying to hold extreme, unreasonable views on the subject, though you moreso, and your comments are well-spiced with crackpot notions as well.

And I think the bulk of American people would agree with me on both counts.

dekhn
This sort of argumentation is not welcome on Hacker News. You're just sort of spouting opinions, not making reasoned arguments. It contributes nothing to the conversation, and frankly, the majority of users don't agree with your premise, or your conclusions even if they agree with the premise.

I worked at Google and my paternity benefits were fine and I wouldn't even consider them in the same category as benefits for abortion.

quantified
Govs are here to support population growth? Hope you like living in a world covered by tall apartment blocks eating algae. More than enough people already, quality of life is not improved by more.
moistly
> The fetus is a human who has the right to their body as well

Please point to the legal code that supports this claim.

You can’t. The fetus has no rights. It is not a person under the law. Never has been. Several religions quite clearly support abortion, e.g. Judaism, United Church of Christ, Buddhism, Hinduism, varieties of Islam.

You have no grounds whatsoever for your claim.

togaen
Why would anyone fight against companies providing health care benefits to their employees?
thagerty
It's a cost/benefit win for many companies in the U.S. where maternity leave, let alone universal health care, is not the norm. The optics of such a policy cast a favorable light on the employer, while the cost is minimal, and much less than maternity leave. Since most Americans are in favor of Roe v Wade, the employer is not taking much of a risk by taking a side here. If you haven't guessed by now, business in the U.S. is not about having a happy workforce, it is about the bottom line. Only when competition for that workforce intensifies do the employers consider adding perks. And yes, it's insane.
subsection1h
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nikolqy

"Male, 19 and living in Missouri right now."

LOL.

moistly
Oh, shit, did you read back a few pages for his comments on the Russian invasion, Jan 6th, his trusted news sources, and whatnot? Ffffuuuuuu…
nikolqy
AFP, Reuters, WSJ, Fox etc. The ones who aren't actually accused of spreading disinformation, unlike NYT, NPR, WAPO etc. who have to retract lies on the daily.
moistly
I’m sad for you. You know what would likely do you a world of good? Travel. Go spend some time in Canada, Europe, New Zealand. Clear your head of the brainwashing.

So, great coincidence, I was coming back to this thread to ask you if you support mandatory vaccination.

nikolqy
If you’re implying that AFP, Reuters, WSJ, and Fox News spread disinformation on their sites, then it’s you who’s been brainwashed.
moistly
Christ, dude, you just can not keep saying Fox doesn’t spread disinformation. That’s a bug-fuck crazy statement.

Like I said, you desperately need to get out of the bassackwards fishbowl you’re swimming in. Go visit Europe. Go learn what a modern civilized society is like.

Anyhoo, back to my question: you demand mandatory vaccination, right?

ss108
Shit, he doesn't need to go that far to learn what civilized society is like lol
ss108
Given that Reuters and WSJ inevitably conflict with the propaganda engine that is Fox, what you're saying isn't tenable.
jleyank
There’s no need to pay for birth travel and all of these companies provide health insurance to pay for births. Parental leave, not so much, but the pre and post partum health coverage should be fine. Careful if they eliminate ACA as being preggers goes back to being a pre-existing condition requiring cobra coverage when changing jobs.