Constructive conversations are good. A shouting match is not a conversation. Obviously it's a lot harder to allow just one and not the other. And again, it's

Constructive conversations are good. A shouting match is not a conversation. Obviously it's a lot harder to allow just one and not the other. And again, it's exactly the nuance that's needed to separate these that are needed when one compares China, Iran, and the USA. Executives ought to be able to express their views freely, also companies/shareholders ought to be able to freely replace executives they deem unfit (a bad fit for society). Plus, there's a nuanced (even seemingly small) difference between state-supported oppression and "cancel culture". Aaaand, finally, there's also a big difference between oppressing voices that call for more civil rights (eg. restrictions on what the state can do) versus voices that call for more state-supported restrictions. Calling for more restrictions on women's rights in the name of babies is still supporting more rights for the state, whereas calling for more transparency, accountability, equality for citizens falls on the the exact opposite of this spectrum. --- The conversation about babies' rights is very hard because that it naturally pits two very special groups against each other, babies vs women. Where the former doesn't have the capacity to represent themselves in any meaningful way. So society at large with its myriad voices tries to stand in for them. Any "executive" that just start talking about babies' rights better be prepared to brandish some big guns of philosophy, because so far this issue is so murky that respectable philosophy stops at "well, it's hard", and all we are left with is the endless lowing and parroting of indoctrinated fundamentalist followers of various religions.