No one knows why Bolas wanted the Eldrazi freed**. Some theorize that it's because he wants to eat them. I think he'll try to turn them against the Phyrexians somehow. We'll have to wait and see.
Though the Eldrazi have taken some control over them, the hedrons are still functioning. They keep the Eldrazi bound in their physical forms so they can't head to the Blind Eternities. Right now they're running around treating Zendikar like a smorgasbord, but they can't escape until further notice.
**EDIT: I suppose someone knows, but no one I know knows.
Oh, ok. What made the Eldrazi take physical form in the first place? Do they have to to "feed?"
So then is it clear what Bolas is currently scheming? It seems like he knew about the Eldrazi and was instrumental in getting them released. Any indication why he wanted them released?
Edit: Also, slightly tangential question, but is there anything currently keeping the Eldrazi bound on Zendikar or are they free to journey off into the blind eternities in search of more "food?"
I'm reading through some of the MTG novels now to fill in some backstory. At the end of Alara Unbroken, it appears that Nicol Bolas was killed by Ajani summoning his own soul against him.
But looking at some of the material on the mtg.com, it looks like Bolas was involved in the events leading to the release of the Eldrazi on Zendikar. Did Zendikar happen before Alara or did Bolas survive somehow?
Thanks for any info!
So you support incarcerating women who have abortions for life, then? And what, 20 years for those who try to have an abortion?
What about people who support the death penalty? Should it be applied to women who have abortions?
Generally no, because several things reduce the moral culpability of the woman by a lot.
First off, there is a lot of disinformation about abortion (i.e. many people don't understand why it's murder)
Secondly, nearly all women who undergo abortions are under some kind of duress. (They don't think they can afford it, her "boyfriend" is pushing her, etc.)
Until society takes a firm stance against this crime against humanity, it's unreasonable to expect people to fully understand how serious it its.
I asked what I would have to demonstrate to you to make you believe it. You have responded that I would have to show that no event of "mystical divine interaction" occurred. Since that is impossible, I give up.
Yeah, infants, sure. But what about emotionally mature adults?
If you don't need Him for this, then you should stop bringing Him up.
And if God is necessary to explain many things, I believe we are all, to be frank, screwed.
Actually, I guess I shouldn't have said genetic consequences. It is quite clear, that there are now two paths of heredity - genetics, and culture. The traditions and values of the last generation can be given to the next; and this is done through hereditary channels, because we have the family structure, but also, in the overall social group that exists anywhere, the cultures that lead to success will be prevalent and outspoken. And I realize just now, that the cultures that are confined to the little niches of society because of their unpopularity, are like mutations - they randomly or narrowly prove adaptable, and mostly unpredictable events lead to one taking on the quality.
You agree there is plenty of data space in the brain, right?
You can interpret "mystical divine interaction" to mean someone who is "religious." I.E. even if you don't understand that it is the prayer that sustains someone, show me people who have no inclination to interact with God, have no human interaction, and stay sane.
I don't see why I shouldn't mention God as further explanation. It makes the answers better. But the answers can still stand without it, if you want to throw that part out.
The brain certainly has much more data space than a DNA molecule, but you would need infinite data storage (as well as infinite processing power to create the information) to store a response to every question. We have to have some ability to think on our feet and make decisions that were not pre-answered for us by DNA, culture, etc.
What sort of evidence would you need to see to believe it is not the case that love is a basic human need?
It's important to understand that since some people don't believe in God and will never accept a lifestyle in which a God figure qua God figure plays any part, it's rather foolish to bring God into any debate outside of the basic theological one.
From another perspective, it's just bad form to argue a position by introducing a premise more controversial than your conclusion.
It also occurs to me, an explanation for the case [that] we think the utilitarian conclusion of killing someone for his organs to save five people, is immoral.
Think how convenient it is, for Nature - which can be simplistically attributed with the will to have the traits of the successful be inherited - that we find it disgusting to kill a healthy man, no matter how many unhealthy or injured of us that could save.
That propagates the species pretty nicely; if we killed the healthy and valued only number, then our species would become flooded with all the faults and flaws that lead to disease and injury, because we would be making it maladaptive to be healthy - a right paradox.
Can anyone clearly see the genetic consequences of either conclusion to the abortion issue?
To demonstrate that love is not a basic human need, you would need to show people who exist without any human interaction or mystical divine interaction without going insane.
But the fact is, humans generally won't even survive infancy under those circumstances. Some pretty terrible things happen to babies if you just feed their biological needs- they often just die.
While God is necessary to explain many things, I believe a pro-life stance can generally be defended without using God as part of the demonstration- and that's what I'm doing. When I mentioned God, I was giving explanations for factual phenomenon I was citing. You are free to ignore that, but the presented evidence still stands.
Also, there is no way our entire moral response to any particular scenario is determined by a DNA molecule. There's simply not enough information space there. Expecting to find a genetic explanation for every human decision is wrong.
So is that a yes or a no? For the death penalty or not?
I thought it was pretty clearly a no. But I also pointed out problems implicit in the question.
So to be clear, I am pro-life and defend life at all stages from conception to natural death. This means I oppose the death penalty except in the case where the society has no ability to incarcerate a life-threatening person for life (which certainly does not apply in the USA).
No, I am claiming that the inside of her body is the woman's property and that the unborn baby is using that property without her permission.
First off, you are referring the the baby as some kind of invader, which is.. problematic.
Secondly "using property without permission" is hardly justification for killing someone.
Azrael: I'm not talking about privacy I'm talking about your right to your own torso. Like, the part of you with all the organs in it that you need to survive. Some people think the soul is stored in there too. Its one of your most important posessions second only to your head. I'm not just talking about property rights but your rights to your most sacred property.
Your babies / kids / family are not your property. There was a pretty bloody American war over people being "property."
Which is precisely why focusing on the ability to go without is a poor defining characteristic of a need. I'll point back to my comment regarding Maslow, I mean unless you're suggesting Maslow's definition of a need was wrong.
I'm not sure how this addresses Azrael's point.
You're welcome to use a looser definition of "need" if you want. But if you do, it quickly becomes very hard to justify murder because of such a "need" under that definition.
Sadly, what you call murder, I call thinning the herd. I believe in natural selection. While the story of Darfur is a tragic one, I have the moral ambiguity to say that it really doesn't affect me and I honestly don't care. Some will view that as cold-hearted and cruel but frankly, I know I'm not alone in the way I feel about it.
If you are honestly ok with murder as long as it doesn't "affect you," I really can't argue with that. Fortunately, very few people think that way.
Yes, it does but it does not apply to other things which are considered needs. For example, human beings have a psychological need for physical and social contact with other human beings. This is considered a need because failing to do so can and usually will damage a person's pysche in some way, ie., they end up as "crazy ol' hermits" (forgive the cliche, but it's the most clear example to communicate the idea). Unlike food, water, and air, there is no determinable time period one can point to and say a person will be psychologically damaged at that threshold; it's different for everyone.
But there are many demonstrable examples of people who have never had sex who are anything but mentally ill. So clearly sex is not a need in that sense either. It's possible to forgo sex without physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual harm. Many people have done it and still do it.
Then that's not defining "it however you want" because you're adding a stipulation: that a need must be something a person cannot do without for an arbitrary period of time. And that's not how needs are defined.
Then how are you defining "needs?" Because the definition you just gave applies to food. If you are using a different definition, than you are definition-shifting and your food/sex parallel likely falls apart.
You still think that you have a choice in this or that your morals and beliefs matter to these women. It's not your body. It's not your child. It's her body, it's her health, it's her baby. If she wants to kill it, so be it. That's her right, that's her choice, and she'll have to live with it. Who are you to judge her and what she does with her child?
You keep calling it murder and it's not murder. Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Abortion is legal.
About sex, I think the word everyone is looking for is "instinct". The need or desire to procreate is a primal instinct shared by most animals, including humans. We just have the ability to control (for the most part) the procreation part through the use of contraceptives, celibacy, etc.
So why do we ban murder of born persons? Why is it not my choice to terminate my 1-year old if (s)he is endangering my health/financial stability/whatever?
Also, I'm not judging any person; I'm judging an act. There's a difference.
I thought we were discussing what was morally acceptable, not what's legal. Obviously abortion is legal, that's not the point. Unless you are questioning my use of the word "murder" as a legal term, in which case I'll point out that I'm using it as a moral term, not a legal one. (I.E. what's going on in Darfur right now is still murder even if the government there says it's legal.)
And if you want to say sex is an instinct, that's very different from claiming it's necessary as food is necessary.
Not everyone believes in your god quasius. You probably wish everybody did, but the fact is they won't. Also, your divine love doesn't always work (Priests raping alter boys/nuns for one thing.) It only masks sexual frustration in many cases. Seriously, I can see it in the eyes of every bible-thumper around here when they stand around campus handing out bibles and calling the girls harlots.
To address the second point:
Food/Sex is a necessity->
I don't want to be poisoned with child->
I'll take the antidote in case this food/sex has baby/poison in it->
Antidote didn't work, I've got to go to the hospital to get my stomach pumped/abortion->
I used the antidote correctly, I am not at fault if it fails->
The poison/baby was going to harm me. Better for it to go than me->
How does your not believing in God change my arguments? You claimed that sex is a human necessity. I said it's not and gave several examples to prove it. I also gave the reason behind why it's not (God's love); but even if you don't understand the reason, there are still plenty of people who get along just fine without sex which disproves your assertion that sex is a necessity for life as food is.
As for your red herring about (the very few) rapist priests, obviously that's not the group of people I was talking about. And in those cases, divine love did not "not work." They failed to do their part (properly receiving it.)
As for your other red herring about "bible-thumpers" calling people harlots, what does that have to do with anything? I must have missed where I supported something like that.
Oh, ok. What made the Eldrazi take physical form in the first place? Do they have to to "feed?"
Edit: Also, slightly tangential question, but is there anything currently keeping the Eldrazi bound on Zendikar or are they free to journey off into the blind eternities in search of more "food?"
I'm reading through some of the MTG novels now to fill in some backstory. At the end of Alara Unbroken, it appears that Nicol Bolas was killed by Ajani summoning his own soul against him.
But looking at some of the material on the mtg.com, it looks like Bolas was involved in the events leading to the release of the Eldrazi on Zendikar. Did Zendikar happen before Alara or did Bolas survive somehow?
Thanks for any info!
Generally no, because several things reduce the moral culpability of the woman by a lot.
First off, there is a lot of disinformation about abortion (i.e. many people don't understand why it's murder)
Secondly, nearly all women who undergo abortions are under some kind of duress. (They don't think they can afford it, her "boyfriend" is pushing her, etc.)
Until society takes a firm stance against this crime against humanity, it's unreasonable to expect people to fully understand how serious it its.
You can interpret "mystical divine interaction" to mean someone who is "religious." I.E. even if you don't understand that it is the prayer that sustains someone, show me people who have no inclination to interact with God, have no human interaction, and stay sane.
I don't see why I shouldn't mention God as further explanation. It makes the answers better. But the answers can still stand without it, if you want to throw that part out.
The brain certainly has much more data space than a DNA molecule, but you would need infinite data storage (as well as infinite processing power to create the information) to store a response to every question. We have to have some ability to think on our feet and make decisions that were not pre-answered for us by DNA, culture, etc.
To demonstrate that love is not a basic human need, you would need to show people who exist without any human interaction or mystical divine interaction without going insane.
But the fact is, humans generally won't even survive infancy under those circumstances. Some pretty terrible things happen to babies if you just feed their biological needs- they often just die.
While God is necessary to explain many things, I believe a pro-life stance can generally be defended without using God as part of the demonstration- and that's what I'm doing. When I mentioned God, I was giving explanations for factual phenomenon I was citing. You are free to ignore that, but the presented evidence still stands.
Also, there is no way our entire moral response to any particular scenario is determined by a DNA molecule. There's simply not enough information space there. Expecting to find a genetic explanation for every human decision is wrong.
I thought it was pretty clearly a no. But I also pointed out problems implicit in the question.
So to be clear, I am pro-life and defend life at all stages from conception to natural death. This means I oppose the death penalty except in the case where the society has no ability to incarcerate a life-threatening person for life (which certainly does not apply in the USA).
First off, you are referring the the baby as some kind of invader, which is.. problematic.
Secondly "using property without permission" is hardly justification for killing someone.
It's not a strawman. You are claiming that the unborn baby INSIDE OF HER BODY is the mother's property, correct?
You are missing something. There's plenty of things someone can do to someone else's body without killing him.
Your babies / kids / family are not your property. There was a pretty bloody American war over people being "property."
You're welcome to use a looser definition of "need" if you want. But if you do, it quickly becomes very hard to justify murder because of such a "need" under that definition.
If you are honestly ok with murder as long as it doesn't "affect you," I really can't argue with that. Fortunately, very few people think that way.
But there are many demonstrable examples of people who have never had sex who are anything but mentally ill. So clearly sex is not a need in that sense either. It's possible to forgo sex without physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual harm. Many people have done it and still do it.
So which one of those are you using? It's not important what Webster says; it's important that we are all using the same definition.
Then how are you defining "needs?" Because the definition you just gave applies to food. If you are using a different definition, than you are definition-shifting and your food/sex parallel likely falls apart.
So why do we ban murder of born persons? Why is it not my choice to terminate my 1-year old if (s)he is endangering my health/financial stability/whatever?
Also, I'm not judging any person; I'm judging an act. There's a difference.
I thought we were discussing what was morally acceptable, not what's legal. Obviously abortion is legal, that's not the point. Unless you are questioning my use of the word "murder" as a legal term, in which case I'll point out that I'm using it as a moral term, not a legal one. (I.E. what's going on in Darfur right now is still murder even if the government there says it's legal.)
And if you want to say sex is an instinct, that's very different from claiming it's necessary as food is necessary.
How does your not believing in God change my arguments? You claimed that sex is a human necessity. I said it's not and gave several examples to prove it. I also gave the reason behind why it's not (God's love); but even if you don't understand the reason, there are still plenty of people who get along just fine without sex which disproves your assertion that sex is a necessity for life as food is.
As for your red herring about (the very few) rapist priests, obviously that's not the group of people I was talking about. And in those cases, divine love did not "not work." They failed to do their part (properly receiving it.)
As for your other red herring about "bible-thumpers" calling people harlots, what does that have to do with anything? I must have missed where I supported something like that.