"More frightening to me is that they seem to be conducting beta-tests of unproven software on public roads."

This is how most software companies work these days. Several airplanes have already crashed because of software updates that weren't rigorously tested.

I believe there's an objective scientific definition of a human being. You're not comfortable with the idea of a human being killed by an abortion, so you deny science, just like PravdaPain/TruthHurts does. You guys are no better than the religious nuts when you do this. I know it pisses you off when someone says that, but it's true.

"Nor should we, because we don't have the time, energy, or resources to spend"

This has no relevance to whether or not it's a human being.

"Something smells fishy here."

ISWYDT.

Since anyone can add arbitrary qualifiers to define what a human being is, you can't prove that an infant is any more of a human being than a zygote. Young children contribute nothing to society and are just parasites. To use your terminology, they're just potential humans until they can live on their own.

Using your logic, Smith and Peterson made individual health decisions that were none of anybody's business.

"Interesting that they didn't identify the First Amendment cause. Maybe it was just a bunch of historical buffs trying to reclaim all the good in the swastika."

Sounds like a good opportunity to make swastikas in the snow.

你击沉了我的战舰！

Sounds like weather.

I miss the old weather channel, with their weather babe meteorologists. I remember they always had at least one who was pregnant (usually Sharon).

It's always a tricky thing whether and how much information the media should cover about terrorists and mass murderers, because it could incentivize copycats if it looks like they'll be rewarded with a bigger platform for their lame manifestos.

Should we even count young children when looking at statistics of causes of death? If so, why?

Scott was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Laci and the second-degree murder of Conner.

"force a woman to carry a rape fetus to term"
"force a 12 year old child to care the results of ------ to term"

You know very well that no one here has advocated for this.

"Let's make vasectomies mandatory for any man who wishes to engage in recreational sex."

WCPGW? Society used to forcibly sterilize both genders of certain groups of people to prevent unwanted pregnancies, especially if they were known engage in recreational sex. How would you prevent similar abuse with your proposal?

Can someone explain to PravdaPain what a straw man is? They clearly don't understand.

"An individual's health decision isn't comparable to Feudal lord's decisions about their serfs."

It is for the "it's none of your damn business" argument.

If you do not agree with me, you are for:

1. Straw man argument #1
2. Straw man argument #2
3. Straw man argument #3
4. Straw man argument #4
5. Straw man argument #5
6. Straw man argument #6

This doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

"Therefore, the only moral choice, and the only logical choice for a society is to leave the decision to the person primarily involved."

This was a basic tenet of Feudalism for centuries. It was considered moral and logical for land-lords to have complete supremacy over everything and everyone on the property they owned. What they did to them was none of anybody's business. A peasant was not considered equivalent to a full human being, full stop.

That's your argument. You know it's weak and problematic, which is why you're lashing out like a child ferociously attacking anyone who criticizes it.

Denying others' humanity is not a trivial thing, even though many of you losers do it on a regular basis. Extreme stuff like that should be challenged whenever it pops up. Many of you are obviously insecure in your pro-abortion arguments, as if you cannot defend abortion rights if the unborn child is acknowledged to be a human being.

Ironically, I've posted arguments before about how the two things can be reconciled, and I know many of you have seen it. But instead y'all want to cling to this stupid, illogical argument denying that an individual is a human being based on their stage of development.

From his point of view it wasn't murder. He probably saw it as a right to self-determination.

"unsubstantiated assertions."

You get what you give.

This thread looks more like a failed attempt to normalize the use of Popcorn by hate groups in the US.

From Peterson's POV, his wife and unborn child were leeches, and he didn't think it was wrong to remove them.

*haven't

"And you're justifying slavery by insisting women carry an unwanted foreign entity through childbirth at risk to the woman's life and health."

I have done either of those things. You're hallucinating.

"Christ, you're dumb"

That's the second time today that someone called me Christ. I must be a saviour now.

"Slavery is wrong"

Duh. But a lot of people tried to justify it by denying slaves were human beings. Because it was "generally accepted" at the time.

"Removing an unwanted leech is not wrong"

Scott Peterson agrees.