Bob Iger: "Very Difficult" for Disney to Work in Georgia If New Abortion Law Enacted
It's disgraceful that a company that has made so much money entertaining children has now threatened the State of Georgia because it wants to stop people from killing children.
Netflix has also gotten into the act.
People who work in Hollywood are disgusting and immoral, snorting coke off the bellies of women who want to be actresses and so desperate to work they will allow producers to degrade them.
It's no wonder they're baby killers too.
Dear
Blackrook
I think you are mixing at least 3 different issues
1. Yes, I would agree that supporting Hollywood is connected with
exploiting sex, including women, for profits, where the money doesn't go into helping women
sustainably, but is spent supporting excessive lifestyles while hiding abuse and addictions.
Like exploiting and promoting drugs in the media, but failing to use media and celebrity influence to
promote spiritual help and education to heal and cure causes of abuse and addictive disorders.
2. both the laws in Georgia, NY and Alabama that go to one extreme or the other with abortion,
FAIL to address PREVENTION that could unite all sides. As long as legislation doesn't address and
solve the root cause of abusing sex or abusing relations that CREATE unwanted pregnancy,
this one-sided approach of either appeasing prolife or prochoice is GOING to cause objections
because of the problems with how laws are written and enforced.
This is a SEPARATE problem from abortion itself.
That DYNAMIC in trying to craft legislation without solving the root cause of the problems
IN ITSELF causes both sides to protest the other -- before, instead of, and without ever addressing abortion
and the life and rights of the unborn child.
We need to address this dynamic first, get it out of the way and resolved.
So because of that ADDITIONAL complication with legislation,
one or both sides are being forced to compromise by trying to legislate
AFTER the problem of unwanted pregnancy has already occurred.
It is NOT SUPPOSED to be about either
"IMPOSING ON OR CONTROLLING WOMEN"
or about "KILLING OR SAVING BABIES"
To avoid compromising conflicts, we'd all have to focus on PREVENTING
unwanted pregnancy in the first place, so we don't argue about abortion after the fact.
There is NO WAY to address this issue through legislation AFTER unwanted pregnancy
because it's ALREADY going to compromise the BELIEFS of one side or the other
(even before we GET to the issues of the rights of women or children)
3. for the last point, where you lost me is calling people "baby killers"
This reminds me of when people oppose regulations on guns,
and get accused of supporting mass shooting and gun violence.
Sorry but I can't make that extreme leap in logic and associations.
You can be 100% against abortions, and believe in 100% prevention of
unwanted pregnancy in order to eliminate abortions 100%
and STILL be opposed to legislation banning abortions.
Banning is NOT the only way to stop abortions 100%.
So opposing bans on abortions does not equate with "baby killing."
That part I don't get.
But if Hollywood money goes into funding and lobbying for abortion
providers and doesn't equally fund programs that help women with better
options (such as the Nurturing Network that I think deserves
equal or more funding support than Planned Parenthood does),
then I would get it if you were criticizing lobbyists for "supporting baby killers."
