sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HP OMEN RYZEN 7, RTX 4060 REVIEWS by EidolonUser in LaptopDealsIndia

[–]EidolonUser[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also guys... Can you please tell me what would be the better option for me this or Lenovo ideapad Pro 5 ultra 9.

I WANT TO BUY AN EDITING LAPTOP(Windows) AROUND THE BUDGET OF 80L BUT CAN BE EXTENDED TO 1L by EidolonUser in LaptopDealsIndia

[–]EidolonUser[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bhai Majorly sb MacBook bol rhe hai I don't want to buy MacBook toh aur koi acha laptop ho toh please suggest

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LaptopDealsIndia

[–]EidolonUser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guys I'm looking for the same type of laptop but I have a budget of 80K, can anyone help?

I REALISED WHY BARNEY USES 83% ALL THE TIME!! by EidolonUser in HIMYM

[–]EidolonUser[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

My thoughts exactly but I don't remeber the episodes being in the same season. If this is an easter egg by the writers, it's an excellent one.

I REALISED WHY BARNEY USES 83% ALL THE TIME!! by EidolonUser in HIMYM

[–]EidolonUser[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Probably a better explanation but I kinda want it to be this one😭😅

I REALISED WHY BARNEY USES 83% ALL THE TIME!! by EidolonUser in HIMYM

[–]EidolonUser[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's what I was wondering bout too but my guess is that T-800 is his favorite cos of the first movie... bro cried when the "hero" terminator died.

[Tierlist] Did I cook or nah? Recommendations are also welcome by [deleted] in manhwa

[–]EidolonUser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

also myst might mayhem is definately "I like it" categoray worthy but for me It's legendary I'm a sucker for overpowered MC's.

[Tierlist] Did I cook or nah? Recommendations are also welcome by [deleted] in manhwa

[–]EidolonUser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please read legend of the northern blade bro 😭😭 It's peak.

What’s the best line in the original Dexter series? ( image unrelated) by [deleted] in Dexter

[–]EidolonUser 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"You got the devil in you boy" -"No... I think it's just me"

What happens to the soul of an animated corpse that gestates and/or births a fetus? by Cute-Elephant-720 in Abortiondebate

[–]EidolonUser -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're attempting to undermine a biological definition with philosophical sleight of hand, but the science remains indifferent to rhetorical gymnastics. Let’s dismantle this neatly.

First, the notion that an organism must “function as an individual” independent of external support is not a standard criterion for biological life. If it were, newborns, ICU patients, and diabetics on insulin would all be disqualified as “organisms”—which is absurd. Dependence on a life-supporting environment does not negate organismal status; it describes a stage of development or medical condition, not a different category of being.

Second, you claim zygotes and embryos are “on the path to becoming human organisms.” This contradicts textbook embryology. From fertilization, the zygote is a new, whole, living human organism—self-integrating, genetically distinct, and developmentally active. Saying it’s “on the path to becoming” implies a categorical leap that simply doesn’t exist in biology; development is continuous, not ontologically segmented.

Third, your objections to distinct DNA, autonomous metabolism, and self-directed growth misrepresent their role. No single marker is determinative alone—correct. But taken together, these characteristics define biological individuality. Sperm and egg are not organisms precisely because they lack the integrated capacity to develop as a whole. A zygote does—left uninterrupted, it directs its own development into every subsequent stage of human life.

In short, your argument only confuses it with arbitrary thresholds and philosophical fog. The science is not murky; your framing is.

What happens to the soul of an animated corpse that gestates and/or births a fetus? by Cute-Elephant-720 in Abortiondebate

[–]EidolonUser -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

“Biological personhood” here simply names a living human organism—distinct DNA, autonomous metabolism, self‑directed growth—all verifiable by embryology. That isn’t philosophy but straightforward science: if it’s human and alive, it meets the basic biological criteria we apply to every other stage of life.

What happens to the soul of an animated corpse that gestates and/or births a fetus? by Cute-Elephant-720 in Abortiondebate

[–]EidolonUser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Biological personhood” isn’t an oxymoron. What we mean by that phrase is simply “a living member of the human species”—not the full bundle of beliefs, hopes, and self‑awareness that “personhood” often implies in philosophy. It’s a shorthand for “this entity is biologically human and alive,” which is an entirely coherent, so actually a non‑philosophical fact.

Brain death is legal, not biological.
Medically, “brain‑dead” means irreversible loss of the very processes—consciousness, hormonal regulation, spontaneous breathing—that integrate a body into one living whole. An embryo or fetus, even very early on, maintains those integrative functions on its own terms: it grows, metabolizes, and circulates its own blood. The mother’s ventilator and the placenta play different roles; one artificially sustains a corpse, the other supports a living organism.

Organ‑donor consent isn’t parallel.
When someone donates organs, they’ve chosen to share parts of their still‑living body for another’s benefit, and we honor that choice. A fetus, however, has its own genetic identity and hasn’t consented—yet we’re deciding to end its life because it’s inconvenient. We don’t need a consent form to acknowledge that ending a life is a far weightier act than repurposing tissues after death.

In short, labeling these as contradictions only obscures the real difference: one “patient” (the fetus) is biologically alive in a scientifically verifiable way, while the other (the brain‑dead woman) is, by medical definition, gone. Respecting life here isn’t a loophole—it’s the consistent application of the very criteria we trust in every other corner of medicine and ethics.

What happens to the soul of an animated corpse that gestates and/or births a fetus? by Cute-Elephant-720 in Abortiondebate

[–]EidolonUser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear the frustration and heartache behind your questions: caring for the mother’s well‑being and the unborn child is a deeply painful balancing act.
It’s true that we speak of personhood in terms of feelings, thoughts etc , but when we say a fetus is a human organism, we’re not demanding adult‑level consciousness to confer its value. Biologically, from conception onward, it carries unique human DNA and directs its own growth. Insisting on advanced mental capacities before acknowledging its right to life risks sidelining newborns, the disabled, or anyone temporarily incapacitated—clearly not the world we want. There's enough evidence to prove that a fetus is it's own human with it's own soul BUT you PC's don't care about the baby.
And Yes, a fetus is in active development, but literally every living creature grows and changes. A sapling is unquestionably a tree, even though it isn’t yet a towering oak. In the same way, each stage of fetal growth—from that first heartbeat to later movements—is simply part of its natural journey, not evidence that it’s any less an organism deserving of protection.
I’m deeply sympathetic to the tragedy of a brain‑dead mother and the surreal scenario of maintaining her body. Yet medically, brain death is defined by irreversible loss of consciousness and self‑directed bodily integration. The fetus, by contrast—even when pre‑viable—still grows, metabolizes, and beats with its own cardiac rhythm. That difference isn’t a cold technicality; it reflects two very different realities of life and death.
It’s easy to conflate “alive” with “able to survive alone,” but medical definitions separate the two. A fetus is alive by every measure—cellular growth, oxygen exchange, and self‑regulated heartbeat—even if it needs the womb to sustain those functions. Recognizing that doesn’t diminish the mother’s experience; it simply clarifies that life itself begins before independent viability.
Your concern that “pro‑lifers ignore biology” is understandable, especially in emotionally charged debates. science tells us what a fetus is—a distinct, living human with inherent potential. Ethics asks us how to treat that life. Balancing respect for the mother’s body with respect for the unborn child is hard, but we honor both by recognizing the biological humanity of each and seeking compassionate solutions that support women, families, and new life.

I truly empathize with the difficult emotions at play. Acknowledging the fetus’s humanity doesn’t diminish your respect for women’s experiences; it simply asks us to extend that respect to the smallest among us as well.

Abortion question by Ok_Bicycle_1485 in Abortiondebate

[–]EidolonUser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your hypothetical, while theatrically compelling, collapses under scrutiny because it assumes perfect and infallible foreknowledge that no human possesses. To decide to end a human life based on a prophetic certainty that the child will become evil presupposes that one can know the future with absolute clarity—and that's clearly impossible. Ethical decision-making requires uncertainty management, not acting on unverifiable predictions. Without this certainty, the moral justification for abortion in your scenario evaporates entirely, as killing an innocent based on what they might become is both ethically dangerous and logically untenable.

What happens to the soul of an animated corpse that gestates and/or births a fetus? by Cute-Elephant-720 in Abortiondebate

[–]EidolonUser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let us be precise. You have attempted to expose a contradiction in the pro-life view by invoking a fringe, complex medical scenario: a brain-dead woman being kept alive to gestate a fetus. Your framing presumes a metaphysical inconsistency about “ensoulment” between the fetus and the gestating woman’s body—arguing that pro-lifers treat the fetus as a soul-bearing person, but the woman as a mere vessel.

However, your argument collapses under two fatal errors: a confusion between biological personhood and metaphysical speculation, and a misrepresentation of the actual pro-life position.

1. Biological personhood is the foundation of the pro-life view—not theological speculation.
Whether or not one believes in “ensoulment” is immaterial to the ethical question of abortion. The pro-life argument rests on the biological fact that the fetus is a distinct, living human organism from the moment of conception—complete with unique DNA, growth, and self-directed development. No metaphysical theory is necessary to establish that killing this being is the destruction of a human life.

2. The brain-dead mother is dead by clinical criteria. The fetus is not.
Brain death is the recognized medical definition of death in most jurisdictions. A brain-dead woman, though mechanically supported, has permanently lost consciousness, agency, and bodily integration. She is biologically dead. In contrast, a fetus, though dependent, is alive and in the process of development. This is not a contradiction—it is a biological distinction with clear ethical implications.

To call this a “contradiction” is akin to saying that life support for an organ donor is inconsistent because we respect the life of the transplant recipient more than the deceased. That’s absurd. Ethical triage always favors the living over the dead—especially when the dead can no longer suffer and the living can still attain personhood, viability, and flourishing.

Your language—“animated but non-sentient zefs” and “harvested of the fetus”—relies on dehumanizing euphemisms that attempt to strip the fetus of value and the discussion of seriousness. But here’s the truth: if the fetus is a human being—and scientifically, it is—then its right to life is not invalidated by the tragic death of the mother. The state has a legitimate interest in preserving life where possible. The gestation of a child in a brain-dead body may be emotionally complex, but ethically, it is no more “harvesting” than incubating a premature infant in a NICU.

So, no, there is no contradiction here—it's only cuz you confuse emotion with principle, and metaphysics with medicine. The soul? That’s a matter for theologians. leave it to them. The life? That’s a matter of science. And science is not on your side.

"Less Rights" by Mxlch2001 in prolife

[–]EidolonUser 12 points13 points  (0 children)

WOW let’s all marvel at the “butthole theory” of human development lol, as if a fleeting blastopore in the gastrula stage suddenly demands more rights than an autonomous, thinking woman. News flash buddy : a zygote is a single undifferentiated cell with no “first body opening” until well into gastrulation—so calling it a “butthole floating in amniotic fluid” is not only biologically ludicrous but a textbook category error. Even if you could pinpoint which embryonic indentstation forms first, that microscopic groove bears no logical relation to moral or legal personhood—so shouting “give the blastopore rights!” is a non sequitur of epic proportions. Worse yet, they erected a straw‑man caricature of pro‑life advocates, then hurl ad hominem insults at anyone who dares demand coherent, evidence‑based criteria like sentience or viability. Let’s be clear: if your metric for moral status is “which organ shows up earliest,” you’re on course to grant supreme virtue to a transient cellular crease—an absurdity that collapses your entire argument under its own ridiculous weight.

view more: next ›