The more accurate statement here would be that the mother chose to put something inside of herself that, at some point (perhaps while still inside the mother), will become a person.

Please note that, structurally, this is identical to the argument that “no child should be murdered because of the poor decisions of their mother”.

I’m saying it because no woman should be forced to give birth if she chooses not to.  I don’t care if her womb contains a human, a person, or the earthly embodiment of the deity of your choice.  As long as it’s a part of her body, her rights rule.  

It’s incredibly important to note that you just moved the goal post... you’ve changed the critical variable from “human” to “person”.

Until that baby is born, everything that happens is a matter of the mother’s health and bodily autonomy.  Once it’s born, it is its own person.  Until then, the mother’s body, the mother’s decision.  No woman should ever be forced to give birth if she chooses not to.  This isn’t the fucking dark ages. 

Well you see, that’s where you’re wrong. Some people did get forced to have the vaccine or not feed their family by losing their job.

So, in your view, when is an unborn baby a “human”? Just curious, since you seem so sure of everything.

The OP’s point is super weak... but I wonder which humans you think are supposed to get universal health care and a constitutionally protected right to bodily autonomy?

You don’t seem to know what discussion you’re actually trying to have.  

No one has to get vaxxed. But if you don’t get vaxxed during a pandemic, expect to have your privileges curtailed. At that point your behavior is a threat to public health, and you don’t have the right to threaten the public health.

People know when they get into a live service game that the game will change and evolve over time and the game they buy into won’t be the same as the game they’re playing a year or two later. That’s the nature of live service games.

So could American assassins.  They’re just too damned lazy.  

Obama? No.

In terms of compulsion and dopamine addiction, I don’t see how that’s a distinction that matters from a psychological perspective. Whether you “win” money or some rare “legendary gem” or whatever, it’s all the same compulsive, dopamine-driven behavior.  

How is it different than any other gambling addiction?

People laugh at anything ridiculous.  The vast majority of those things don’t end up starting a world war.  Your anecdote is not evidence. 

Constantly raving about his right to express himself.

I think making the sale and trafficking illegal likely does. The problem is that we prosecute the end users.  We’re punishing the exploited rather than the exploiters.  Drug use should be a health issue, but sales and trafficking should be illegal for most controlled substances.  

I think casino gambling, like any business that profits by exploiting people, is inherently immoral and unethical. As to whether that should make it illegal, that’s not really an option, because you’d be restricting the free will of those who aren’t addicted, not to mention you’d be cutting of the supply that addicts…

The problem is that while the casino may be available to all those people, it exists specifically to prey on the addicted minority. Same with D:I. The game may draw lots of players who never pay, but it exists to exploit the ones that will.  That is its purpose, and all those other free players are there as…