User talk:Bob Soles/archive1

EarthTroll visists your talk page

I simply wanted to mention that I'm not "involving myself in discussions purely for the purpose of disturbing other users and making myself feel important". That my opinion differs from most other people here should not be a problem for open-minded people. It is natural that if person with opposing views turns up it causes some extra discussion.

I'm also not the "concern troll" visiting sites of an opposing ideology. There is no universal conclusion that anti-abortion views are conservative and "irratioanl" crank ideas, although RW is quite openly on the pro-choice side. In most other issues I actually agree with RW's point of view.

--Earthland 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it.

Quite seriously, you state as undeniable dogma positions which are, to say the least, debatable. I don't care how many links you can find, argument from authority is not good enough and, anyway, should one choose to do so, one could find plenty of links saying exactly the opposite.

And then you state - But abortion is and always will be direct killing of the innocent human being, always regrettable and never morally justifiable. - Again this is a dogmatic position on a subject which is wide open to debate but you state it as undeniable fact. By doing this you are not debating, you are preaching. The implication is quite clear. Those who have abortions are amoral at best, probably immoral in your eyes. As such you are calling people I know and love immoral. How dare you! What do you know! What gives you the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong. You say that this is just your opinion but you don't write it that way. You march in here and call many of the participants of this wiki immoral. That is picking a fight, and, as such trolling.

If you want a debate you can start by being civil; you can start by accepting that yours is not the only view, that those who oppose you might just have thought things through and come to different answers.

And then there's your choice of wiki. Why, please tell me why, you chose to write such a one sided essay in a place where you just knew it was going to stir up controversy. Why did you choose here? And, having chosen a wiki dedicated to rational debate (and snark) why did you come and write an essay which allowed no room for debate. Those who abort are immoral. Full stop. Life begins at conception. Full stop. Those are your views and you have no thought whatsoever in changing them. You want to impose your arguments on us without in any way listening to what we have to say. Your mind is made up, closed, rigid, dogmatic.

So, that's why I call you EarthTroll. I realise that it's a little harsh but what you do and how you do it is guaranteed to stir up trouble, trolling in other words. Bob Soles 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair I don't think the EL is a troll. He doesn't really fit any of the definitions. Also our main page says: We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. So perhaps you are being a little harsh.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Engage in constructive dialogue". Not: Fingers in ears; I'm right & la; la; la. _& marmite^chat 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, my fellow hedgehog enthusiast. Bob Soles 18:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Quite seriously, you state as undeniable dogma positions which are, to say the least, debatable. I don't care how many links you can find, argument from authority is not good enough and, anyway, should one choose to do so, one could find plenty of links saying exactly the opposite."

Can you specify what do you exactly mean? That life begins at conception?

Or well, whatever you mean. If you think that I state something as an undeniable "dogma" while this actually is debatable (of course everything is debatable, even the shape of Earth) you can:

a)easily prove that what I say is not true (for example finding "plenty of links saying exactly the opposite")
b)say that you can easily prove that what I say is wrong while actually never doing that, only stating that I'm too confident when putting forth arguments (as you probably have chosen to do)

"Again this is a dogmatic position on a subject which is wide open to debate but you state it as undeniable fact. By doing this you are not debating, you are preaching"

Dogma is an established belief held by a religion. Preaching is defined as talking about a religious subject in a public place. What charming hints about religion. Believe it or not (probably not), I am not religious person.

Yes, I put it forth as an undeniable fact. This is what people tend to do if they believe what they are talking about. What gives me the right? I backed my claim up with numerous scientific references; and once again, it's up to you to either disapprove or approve or simply discuss what I say. Say that it is not undeniable fact, and back up your claim also. (Instead of calling me "troll".)

Or do you want to say that if there are two completely different versions of the one and the same thing, one should never pick one side but simply float somewhere in the middle? It's like saying that as 100% of people don't believe earth is round, I should also not state it as something undeniable.

Those who have abortions are amoral at best, probably immoral in your eyes. As such you are calling people I know and love immoral. How dare you! What do you know! What gives you the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong. You say that this is just your opinion but you don't write it that way. You march in here and call many of the participants of this wiki immoral.

Yes, probably some people who have had abortion are amoral or immoral (what's the difference?) in my eyes. This is not always this way. People who know that they do wrong thing but do it anyway, they are immoral. Objectively, abortion as an act is immoral, but intention matters most when calling people immoral. People who want an abortion in spite of knowing that it causes death of another human being are immoral in my eyes.

What gives me that right to call some people immoral? A lot of explanation, and it's up to you to either agree or disagree with me. And if you think that the given explanation is wrong, always show me how exactly.

To my mind, I have never called anyone on this wiki immoral. I believe that you believe that you act in best interests. I do not believe that you always act in best interests of other people, and therefore I try to explain, why.

"If you want a debate you can start by being civil; you can start by accepting that yours is not the only view, that those who oppose you might just have thought things through and come to different answers."

Yes indeed. I think I know it myself very well.

"And then there's your choice of wiki. Why, please tell me why, you chose to write such a one sided essay in a place where you just knew it was going to stir up controversy. Why did you choose here?"

Why not here?! Should I have chosen wiki where everyone agree with my point of view anyway? I chose RW because I actually hoped for controversy and I wanted to know how people with opposing views answer to me.

"And, having chosen a wiki dedicated to rational debate (and snark) why did you come and write an essay which allowed no room for debate."

Essay which allowed no room for debate? It seriously confuses me. There is always room for debate, unless something is so true that noone can come up with opposing arguments. They way how I say sth does not matter if it is not true what I say.

Essay - "a short piece of writing giving someone's ideas about politics, society etc". Essay is written to convince other people that your point of view is right. And obviously, if I think that abortion is wrong I write my essay from that point of view.

Can you please bring me an example when I'm not really listening to what you say? "Fingers in ears; I'm right & la; la; la." This is exactly what you do, usually evading or dodging the questions, never giving full answers and so on.--Earthland 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

convenient edit point - reply to Earthland

I'm going to assume that English is not your first language which might explain why you fail to follow some quite straight forward points. You say that everyone in Estonia can speak English - but that doesn't mean you understand the nuances that a native speaker would. I can't be bothered to go through each and every quibble - life is too short so let's try...

1. Can I explain why I call you dogmatic. We'll start with your assertion - made several times as if it were incontrovertibly true - that life begins at conception. OK, I get it. You believe this and you can find plenty of other people who believe it as well. It's a point of view held by lots of people - but importantly not all, or even the majority. However you always state this as fact, not opinion. You never allow for the fact that you might be wrong. As such it is a a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle which is definition #4 of dogma from dictionary.com. If you were to start your assertions with I believe that... then you would be stating a position, not spouting dogma.
2. you say that Preaching is putting forward a religious position in a public place - that's a very narrow definition. Appealing again to dictionary.com - preaching is delivering a sermon. And then, definition #3 of sermon - any serious speech, discourse, or exhortation, esp. on a moral issue - which is exactly what you are doing. So, to be pedantic, you are preaching.
3. I cannot disprove what you say because the statement life begins at conception is not scientific, it philosophic because it begs the question as what you mean by life. I could take the position that life begins when there is recognisable brain activity - which is well beyond conception but another valid view point. Neither can prove the other wrong. We could both google for links and both come up with page after page of references but so what, all we'd prove is that 'there is no definitive answer and people much cleverer than us have been arguing over this since forever. For that matter you cannot prove or disprove that killing is morally wrong. I'm sure we both agree that it is but it's not provable. Again its a philosophic question, not a scientific one.
4. You say you have never called anyone on this wiki immoral - well, excuse me, but you say, in no uncertain terms, that you consider those who have abortions immoral - well you seem to be confused about the difference between amoral and immoral - please refer to a dictionary. Admittedly you are back pedalling on this one. With each turn of the wheel you soften your line but still you return to people who have abortions are immoral. People I know and love have had abortions. They made difficult ethical decisions from circumstances about which you know nothing. Again I say, how dare you judge them?
5. And when I ask why this wiki - you respond - I chose RW because I actually hoped for controversy - yep, you wanted to stir up a row. Oops - isn't that trolling
6. Finally go back to a dictionary and look up demagogue - and also look up the phrase 'the pot calling the kettle black'

So, yes, I find your posts insulting, overly aggressive, specifically designed to stir up trouble, and seriously doubt whether your aim is to add to this wiki in any helpful fashion. Incidentally, for further reading try this article which is pretty fair across the various view points. Note that from a scientific view point alone it defines five, yes five, different points where life can be said to begin. Your definition is the genetic one. There are also equally valid metabolic, embryologcal, neurological and ecological - all different. Bob Soles 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Bob. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose for a moment that it will do any good. Bob Soles 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but still, well said. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have brought up Scott Gilbert's article, which is very interesting. I actually made reference to him in my essay. In one of his bioethics article, he states that:

"The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult"

The quote from Scott Gilbert that I used in my essay, is from his book "Developmental biology", where he states that:

"Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death."

And this viewpoint represents the general scientific consensus about the issue. According to you, of course, encyclopedias are "some people" who "believe" what they say.

And then the article that you pointed out. When Gilbert talks about the neurological point of view, he makes reference to Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist, and to James Trefil, a physic. The branch of science that studies the unborn life is called embryology. The question as to when the human being begins via sexual reproduction should be answered by human embryologists. And the truth is, you can't find human embryologist or any major textbook of human embryology that does not state that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being. Other theories are not only minority views, they are held by people who are not the main experts of the field.

By controversy I meant something like "huge feedback".

--Earthland 08:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You say the all embryologists say that life begins at fertilisation. Sorry, wrong. Most embryologists would agree that a convenient marker for the start of the lifecycle process is fertilisation but that the question where does life begin is far more complex than that. The British government, for example, after serious consultation with a range of experts, uses a combination of the neurological and ecological in this report Bob Soles 09:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The report mentions that the experts included are gynecologist Allan Templeton (a scientist who deals with the diseases and hygiene of women) and professor Malcolm Chiswick, expert in neonatology (a subspecialty of pediatrics that consists of the medical care of newborn infants, especially the ill or premature newborn infant) and in perinatology (a branch of obstetrics that focuses on the medical and surgical management of high-risk pregnancies). This report has nothing to do with the beginning of the life.

"Most embryologists would agree that a convenient marker for the start of the lifecycle process is fertilisation but that the question where does life begin is far more complex than that."

Why more complex? Can you bring me any example? I can bring the following examples, where human embryologists state quite clearly when life begins(you maybe have read them, but I can go it trough for countless times...):

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)

William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)

Thomas W. Sadler: ”The development of a human being begins with fertilization.” (1990. Langman’s Medical Embryology, 6th Ed. p 3. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.)

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)

Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

"Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being." - Dr. C. Ward Kischer ,Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the University of Arizona School of Medicine, American College of Pediatricians

Shall I quote some encyclopedias that say it even more clearly?

--Earthland 10:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You still confuse the beginning of a process with the result of that process. Let's take a rather less emotional example. When did my home start to exist? When the builder commissioned the architect? When the builder purchased the land? When the first brick was laid? When the roof went on? When the house was ready for occupation? The day I moved in? Each and any of those could be said to be the start point but any builder would probably go for the commissioning of the architect, I on the othe hand would go for the day I moved in. The local council would go for he day it appeared on the land registry. We're all right, we're just looking at different stages in the processs that goes from the builder starting a new housing project to the day I moved in. Similarly no one disputes that the start of the life cycle process is at fertilisation - but life, that's a whole different matter. Even defining what life is confounds most people, including embryologists. Is a zygote alive? If so, how is it more alive than a sperm, or an ovum? Given that a generally accepted definition of the end of life in humans is the cessation of brain activity isn't it logical to reverse that and say that the start is the beginning of brain activity? Each position is arguable and supportable.

And the report has everything to do with the start of life in as much as it implies the thought processes behind the decision about the cut-off date for abortions performed in the UK. Defining that cut-off date is, de facto, defining the position where a foetus becomes a person in British law, or, in legal terms, the start of life. The British government was reassessing whether the 24 week cut off was still supportable in view of current medical and scientific advances. Although it is not implicitly stated the implication from what they are looking at is clear; they are defining the start of life using a combination of the ecological and neurological models. (You don't appear to have read as far as the section on whether foetuses can feel pain - that's the bit that implies they're using the neurological model).

Incidentally, where do you stand on the use of the 'Morning After' pills that prevent implantation and the coil (IUD). Taking your position to its logical conclusions you consider women who use either immoral baby killers. After all, by your definition, a woman who uses either is destroying a fertilised ovum - coil users on a regular basis.

Bob Soles 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is really about one preposition. You seem to think that from the moment of fertilization, embryo begins to delevop into human being. I say the embryo develops as human being.

Your comparison to house building is rather philosophical one. If you like it this way, I advise you to read this article. It addresses exactly the question you raised.

If you want to keep it scientific, I advise you to read this article.

Together those two articles make it quite clear. It's really easy actually. You can't say that from some point in its development, embryo/fetus "becomes" human. Or do you think that before it was a parrot or a dog? You actually can't deny that from the "moment" of fertilization we have entity that is a) individual (You can take Scott Gilbert's word for it!) b) alive (consist of living cells) and c) follows the trajectory of human development (human development is continuous process, continues after birth for many many years). C is probably the most important point.

You are the same "thing" that fertilized egg in your mother's uterus once was. You didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo, likewise you didn't come from an adolescent, you once were an adolescent.

And yes, I do think that some contraception pills are actually abortifacients.

--Earthland 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last paragraph of your comment, I think you stuck in one logical fallacy. I don't know what's it's name. But it looks like that:

• You say that human life begins at conception.
• But it would mean that abortion is killing of another human being.
• Therefore, life does not begin at conception.

--Earthland 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So, youa ctually don't deny that fertilization marks the beginning of life cycle? Well, I found some references that point out that life cycles start when an organism's life begins (the beginning of life cycle equals with beginning of life):

sciencemuseum.org says that "You started life as a cell, smaller than a pin-prick. This divided into two, then four, then eight - and so on."

allaboutfrogs.org says that "Life starts right as the central yolk splits in two. It then divides into four, then eight, etc."

eHow about the Life Cycle of Mammals "This, much like the hard outer shell of a bird egg, is what protects the "precious cargo"---a new life. This new life is known at this point as the zygote, or the combined egg and sperm."

The Circle of Life "Once an organism begins its life cycle, it immediately faces survival needs. In order for it to achieve its full, natural lifespan, the organism must overcome many obstacles. Most living things require food, water, sunlight, and oxygen to survive and grow." (If something is going to die, it must be alive first, and of course, individual unit of life)

I hope to find more : ) .That life begins at conception is like theory of evolution... not everyone agree with that, but it'spractically undeniable. And just like anti-evolutionists, those who deny have their personal will behind it.

--Earthland 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

End of this discussion

Earthland

I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Either you won't or can't understand me - I suspect the former. I agree entirely that conception is the start of the life cycle - however I strongly disagree that life, in the sense or personhood, starts there and I am far from alone in this. Neither of the articles you point to did anything to convince me - they just seemed to be the same old pro-life arguments recycled which I have heard over and over and over again. The pro lifers want so desperately to deny that "becoming" is a process because it means that they have to get down off their moral high horses and admit that it is not so black and white after all. The easy answers - of which "personhood begins at conception" is one - are never the truth; life and morality are far more complex than that.

So, according to you, I'm an immoral aider and abbetter of baby murdering - I dare say you would feel that I deserve the death penalty - after all, an aider and abbetter of a murder should surely deserve nothing less. Fine, so be it. Fortunately for me you don't make decisions about my life so quite frankly, I no longer care one iota what you think. This whole conversation - nay shouting match - has been a monumental waste of time. End of. Bob Soles 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The second end of discussion

Liberal last-wordism!

(You say that these points are refuted thousand times, so you won't take time to refute them one time more. This is, of course, very convenient.)

Personhood and life can be taken diffrently. Personhood has little to do with science. Do you say that yes, from the moment of conception we have biologically individual alive human being, who is not person? OK by me, I don't agree with that but if that's what you mean my previous discussion was useless indeed.

Baby is usually said about a born person, by the way. Please stop using straw man. That I think you deserve death penalty is very serious (and childish) statement.

I do believe you're almost drowning into your logical fallacies and mostly you simply ignore what I say. Not fine by me, but, ahhh....

--Earthland 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)