Centurion Longinus

I admitted defeat already. You win. Growth matters. Standing on your words matters. Becoming stronger matters. I agree with you. If I say it— I should back it. If I claim it— I should become it. No excuses. No retreat. That’s real strength. So imagine a world where everyone lives like that. No one folds. No one softens. No one says, “I was wrong.” Every word backed. Every position held. Every man unbreakable. At first— it looks like power. But nothing bends. Nothing adjusts. Nothing holds. Pressure doesn’t leave. It stacks. Word against word. Will against will. And no one can afford to give way. So it keeps building— until it doesn’t...

@SubprimeBort @GigaBasedDad u know what im gonna say dont u. so ur admitting defeat already? il give u time. there is no shame in being wrong. we all grow as people. that is what true strength and power is, growth. not even GOD can surpass that.

Yes.

@DLWF4 @GigaBasedDad No bedtime story for you. I will bookmark and tell you all about it in the morning, promise.

@SubprimeBort @GigaBasedDad im being serious here. just humor me. how impressive is it.

@Simultanagnosia @darwintojesus lol

@SubprimeBort @darwintojesus 🤣

The modern state of atheism.

@DLWF4 @GigaBasedDad oh shoot you got me already—definitely nothing impressive there!

@SubprimeBort @GigaBasedDad is it? i beg to differ. tell me. how impressive is flooding the earth.

@jaxrum @GigaBasedDad iykyk

@DLWF4 @GigaBasedDad the book is antifragile—lots of room to talk

@GigaBasedDad u guys have a book. a long ass line of telephone. i dont think u guys have room to talk either

@Simultanagnosia @darwintojesus Three can play at the game

@darwintojesus Two can play at that game

That’s a clearer claim—sentience and bodily autonomy. But both need justification. If sentience determines moral status, then humans who temporarily lack it (sleep, anesthesia, coma) would lose protection too—so why should current awareness be the line? And if no one is ever required to sustain another with their body, you need to explain why pregnancy is treated as a special case of ‘hosting’ rather than the natural relationship of a developing human organism. So the question doesn’t go away: why should sentience be the decisive threshold, and why should autonomy be absolute in this case but not others where human life is involved?

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami A womans autonomy always override the possible autonomy of a debatable human “baby” because she is a sentient being with the ultimate right to make decisions about her own biology and physical state. She is never required to host something or someone in her own body.

Hi, so the woman who carried and gave birth to me was 13 years old, celebrated her 14th birthday only days before I was born. I should’ve been aborted. It’s really terrible that she was made to carry and birth a baby while she was a child herself. Am I happy to be alive? Yes. Absolutely. Very happy to be here. Would I be mad had I been aborted? No, I wouldn’t exist, I wouldn’t feel anything. I shouldn’t exist. She was a child. The lives of girls/women are more valuable than fetuses.

@JugularYak @Catholic_bro @leshaami Always overrides’ is the conclusion. What’s the reason? Name the property that removes moral status and why it matters—without a non-arbitrary standard, it’s just assertion.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami Youve done nothing but restate your same scientific claims that rely on definition instead of application. I will reiterate as many times as you need. No argument, moral or science based. Overrides a woman’s autonomy over her body

@JugularYak @Catholic_bro @leshaami Saying ‘always and every time’ isn’t a reason—it’s a restatement. Either explain why it’s not a human organism, or explain why autonomy overrides even if it is.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami A woman’s autonomy over her own body overrides the debtable essence and nonexistent autonomy of a clump of cells. Every time, and always

@JugularYak @Catholic_bro @leshaami No one’s denying autonomy matters—the question is whether it overrides everything. If there’s another human organism, it’s a conflict of two, not one; if there isn’t, explain why clearly. Labels and accusations don’t answer that.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami You’re unreasonable lol. You have no cares about a woman’s autonomy and choice over her very BODY, her ESSENCE, HER PHYSICAL FORM. Hers, not yours, not a clump of cells. Her body her choice. Youre framing sexism as a scientific argument.

If autonomy is truly absolute, then it has to hold even when another human organism is involved—so the question of whether there’s ‘another human’ isn’t optional. You’re asserting there isn’t one, but that’s exactly what needs a clear, non-arbitrary reason. On the science point: the claim that a new, self-organizing human organism begins at fertilization isn’t speculation; it’s the standard biological description of a new organism’s start. So either show why that organism doesn’t count as a human in the relevant sense, or explain why autonomy overrides even another human life. Just asserting both doesn’t settle it.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami No no, autonomy IS an absolute. In this case, theres no debate. There isnt even another human. You seem only capable of makomg a scientific point (which is still only speculation).

"Excommunicated for the damage he did to Christianity" 😂

You’re asserting that bodily autonomy is absolute—that’s the claim, not a conclusion. But we don’t treat autonomy as unlimited when another human life is at stake; that’s why the question of what the embryo is still matters. If it’s a human organism, then this is a conflict between two humans, not just one person’s body. f it’s not, then you need a clear, non-arbitrary reason why it doesn’t count. Saying ‘who are you to ask’ doesn’t answer that.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami And who are you to raise such questions in the first place? Are you planning on childbearing? Thats all fine for you, because its your CHOICE, but not a choice you can make for others.

@JugularYak @Catholic_bro @leshaami You’re treating autonomy as absolute, but we don’t treat it that way anywhere else when another human is involved. So either the embryo isn’t a human organism—then say why, clearly—or autonomy alone isn’t enough. Right now you’re assuming your conclusion without defending it.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami It sucks off the WOMANS body, not mother. No woman is a mother unless they choose to take the pregnancy that far. No man or woman has the right to force childbearing onto a any woman. This isnt about what you call a “baby”, its a woman’s body and autonomy.

That shifts the claim from what it is to what’s allowed. If it’s only about choice, you need a principle that says why one human organism’s autonomy overrides another human organism’s life. Independence can’t be that principle—newborns are fully dependent too. So what property flips the moral status, and why should it matter? If you can’t name a non-arbitrary threshold, then dismissing the biology doesn’t actually resolve the moral question—it just sidesteps it.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami But i digress, because even though i disagree with you scientifically, i actually dont consider the science important anyway. It is NO ONES choice but the WOMAN. Talk about “the baby” or “the cells” all you want, its not about “it” or “them”. This is about HER.

Dependence doesn’t determine what something is. Newborns and ICU patients are completely dependent too, but they’re still human organisms. The embryo isn’t part of the mother’s body—it’s a distinct organism of the human species, coordinating its own development from within, even while relying on her for nutrition and environment. "Parasite" is the wrong category: parasites are different species exploiting a host, not an organism developing as its own kind in its natural relationship. So the question isn’t whether it’s dependent—it’s what it is, and dependence doesn’t change that.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami No, an embryo is not innately a human organism. And it’s not “self directed” it is completely and utterly dependent on its hosts and its hosts intake, making it much more like a parasite than a human in this phase

You’re conflating categories. ‘Concept vs fact’ doesn’t dismiss metaphysics—it’s how we interpret facts like what counts as an organism versus a heap of cells. Biology already shows the embryo is a distinct, self-directed human organism; ‘soul’ names the organizing principle of that living unity, not a competing ‘extra.’ Calling it a ‘parasite’ is biologically inaccurate—parasites are different species exploiting a host, whereas this is human offspring in its natural developmental environment. And autonomy matters, but it’s a separate question about what one person may do to another—not something settled by redefining what the embryo is.

@SubprimeBort @Catholic_bro @leshaami Metaphysics and the “soul” are concepts, not facts. You cannot conceptualize a womans body. You cannot control a womans choice. In the embryonic stage it’s more a parasite than anything else, and the woman gets to choose if she wishes to host it.

From fertilization, you don’t have a random ‘clump’—you have a distinct, internally coordinated human organism developing by its own processes toward maturity. It’s not a ‘potential human’ waiting for a switch to flip yes or no; it’s a human being growing in real time. Science identifies the organism; metaphysics explains why a living human organism is ensouled from the start. ‘Clump of cells’ names the material, but ignores the dynamic organization that makes it a living individual with a unique DNA. Metaphysics identifies 3 types of souls: vegetative (tree), sensory (dog), rational (human). Here is the embryonic development of a sensory soul: x.com/cooltechtipz/s…

@Catholic_bro @leshaami Theyre not children, its a clump of cells.

@IjeomaRoseOkoro "Unborn children cannot be categorized as children." Seems 100% legit. Let's add Epstein totally killed himself while we are at it.

But they're not children.