If your primary goal in eliminating billionaires is to eliminate their corrupting influence, then pass laws controlling their influence, as opposed to increasing their tax burden to eliminate their billions. That would seem to address the problem without striking a blow to the underlying ideology of the entire capitalistic system.

That's fucked up. I certainly wouldn't go along with killing all the blond haired babies. Proper be damned. — S

You hypothesized that killing blonde haired babies was moral, so therefore it is.

It's like if I asked you if you would say it was moral to kill blonde haired babies if you subjectively thought it was moral.

You would, you just don't because the hypo is contrary to fact.

Because I trust my moral judgement more than yours. You would have to give me greater reason to trust your moral judgement over mine. Good luck with that. — S

Is it based on reason?

Here's a question for you: if it was proper to kill all the blond haired babies, would you go along with that? — S

Sure, if hypothetically 1+1=3, then it does. You've stipulated the impossible, so the impossible occurred.

But obviously that's merely a hypothetical, and one which doesn't reflect my actual moral judgement about killing blond haired babies. — S

I get it, but why give your moral judgements higher regard than mine?

It's a misunderstanding of moral relativism because it leaves out the relativism part! Approval relative to who or what? I don't approve. He does. I don't approve of his approval. Approval in this context comes under the broader category of moral feeling. Examples of other moral feelings are guilt, shame, outrage, righteousness, vindication, and forgiveness. — S

If all the world believes it proper to kill all the blond haired babies, is it wrong? In this hypothetical, you too believe it's proper.

Yes.I'm glad you agree. Not the end of the increase in knowledge, but past the peak. The internal combustion engine dates from just before 1800, 220 years later, we have improved on it a good deal; likewise the electric motor, 1830s. Jet engine and rocket engine, 1940s and since then - improvements, but no new engines. — unenlightened

The distinction you make to support your pessimistic viewpoint is unclear (as all innovation takes advantage of other known technologies) and irrelevant (whether the life saving drug was founded on wholly new concepts or advancements of existent ones, it's no less important).

With regard to some 100 amazing innovations in 2018 alone, see: https://www.popsci.com/best-of-whats-new-2018.

If the best criticism you have is that they're "tweaks," and not innovations, that doesn't really make me lose any confidence in the continued ability of humans to substantially improve their situation.

Quantum computing will not solve the problem of too many people, not enough jobs, too little money for the price of bread, global warming, and other such existential matters. — Bitter Crank

This is end of times talk, just from the left. Modern misery exists to be sure, but it doesn't hold a candle to ancient miseries.

I am speaking loosely, but the first useable computer was during WW2, and since the transistor made them ubiquitous, I don't see an equivalent novelty in the last 70 years. Nuclear physics, relativity, electromagnetism, evolution are all old stories that are being tweaked, nothing more. — unenlightened

In the 1970s, I'd dispute your claims by flipping through my Encyclopedia Britannica and hand writing you a well thought out letter that you'd get in a few weeks.

It's not just a matter of revolutionary discoveries, but also in novel ways of using existing knowledge. Innovation and genius resulted in the phone in my hand, a far different use of the transistor that powered the AM/FM radio I had as a kid.

The game of monopoly was intended to be an unplayable illustration of the self-destructive nature of capitalism. — unenlightened

Applying existing anti- monopoly laws to the game of Monopoly would dramatically change the game, making the game not analogous to anything in real life.

The end has been delayed by economic expansion and 'revolution', but we have reached peak stuff and peak knowledge, and either we are going to start plying a different game, or the world is going to play it without us. — unenlightened

We haven't reached peak knowledge. Your trust in human creativity is pessimistic. I trust our continued adaption as wells begin to dry.

Read it again. That was just an example he gave as to how we should handle teaching gender-neutrality to children. — Harry Hindu

Nice cross post.

Nobody is suggesting teaching socialism the subject as Hanover implied. — Baden

I did not suggest that. I suggested that gender neutrality issues were ideological issues, and like socialism (another such example), should not be taught from an advocacy perspective.

Right, I see, so you thought this conversation was about teaching Karl Marx to toddlers. — Baden

I've not mentioned Marx, but usually Marx isn't far behind in these conversations about gender. It usually goes down as some argument that the existing power structure is wanting to maintain its control over its resources to subjugate the masses, all having been brought about by capitalist greed. Removing gender based pronouns is somehow the first step in pushing against the power structure. No longer will I be benefited by having a penis, and so I fight viciously to protect my power position.

I didn't see that bit where someone, anyone at all, said gender neutrality only applies to preschool. Remind me. — unenlightened

The Swedish study as described in the NY Times article I cited above seemed to relate to 1 and 2 year olds. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/world/europe/sweden-gender-neutral-preschools.html.

An anecdote. When my family visited Portland, Oregon some time ago, we encountered a 6 foot tall guy walking his dog, wearing a skirt and a bikini top walking down the street. My youngest son said, "Dad, did that guy lose a bet?" Seeing it as a teachable moment, I explained to him, "Son, you're a long way from home." Then we got some ice cream.

Nor does anyone else in the whole wide world. That's why it's so silly. — unenlightened

Alright, so we leave math alone in a gender neutral society. The only thing I've seen that's in need of change is how we are to let our kids play in preschool when they are 1 and 2 years old. Most 1 and 2 year olds are pretty limited in their conversations and understandings of things, and many haven't yet mastered such skills as walking and not spitting out their Cheerio's, let alone understanding the differences among the genders.

What un said, plus — Baden

What I said.

About the first thing that's done when designing a curriculum is that the underlying ideological basis is decided on. You will be pained to know, I'm sure, that these days that is usually some form of liberal humanism (which is why teachers are not supposed to hit your kids, scream at them or force boring rote-learned work down their throats). — Baden

This isn't what I'm referring to. If screaming at kids and using rote learning worked, I'd be in favor of it. When my son was young, I would slap his head as he did his math homework, explaining that if he could work under such conditions, real life would be a breeze. I'll have you know, he's a straight A physics major right now. My results have even been published. I mean I'm right now publishing them here, so I think that counts.

What I'm referring to is having teachers teach a political ideology like it's fact. A teacher can teach socialism, but not that socialism is good. Once she does that, kids start getting taught at home that their teachers are idiots. This assumes every home is like mine, and that seems a safe assumption.

in a myriad of small ways, ignoring, ridiculing, one sex, and encouraging the other. By simply assuming that girls aren't usually as good at maths, or that they're not as interested, or that they won't need it, by not challenging such expressions when they are expressed by pupils. Again, one does not put the dominant ideology on the curriculum because it pervades the ethos of the school. One does not teach gender stereotypes because they pervade everything one teaches. Your maths question is silly, and I have given it far more notice than it deserves. — unenlightened

This is uncontroversial. No one is supportive of ignoring, ridiculing, and discouraging anyone, and no school I know of believes girls should be excluded from math class. So what is it that we're disagreeing about? I was assuming there'd be some rule in some administrative handbook that would be changed after we instituted our gender neutrality polices, but it doesn't sound like there is one.

To the extent that girls are being treated like second rate citizens, I'm as concerned as anyone. I just don't know what real life rule will be affected by this.

Your maths question is silly, and I have given it far more notice than it deserves. — unenlightened

If you say so. My objection remains though, and I don't see how we'll change the math curriculum in a gender neutral society, not do I see how adding and subtracting numbers enforces gender bias. I get how excluding girls from such enterprises would, but I am opposed to such things.

I don't know. Do they have different uniform requirements, maybe? But roles can be supported without being enforced, by simply treating the genders differently. — unenlightened

Most private schools wear uniforms, but few public school do (and I have been previously informed that public and private are used in the reverse in the UK than in the US. Public means government run in the US). I'd think though that a boy could wear a skirt in today's climate.

But I do think we need to figure out specifically what we're asking be changed, else we really don't know what we're arguing about. I

That is ridiculously naive. Education has always been about social engineering, you are simply using it as a negative because it might engineer change. What do you think nuts and bolts are used for? — unenlightened

I'm referencing the misuse of schools to teach a particular ideology. How does teaching math, for example, do that?

So, the debate we're having is about education policy, which changes all the time, and characterizing it as a novel attempt to put the government in charge of ideology and morality is just an attempt to wiggle out of the responsibility to actually think about the issues at hand. — Baden

No, here's what actually happens. The schools stop teaching the basic nuts and bolts about the world and decide their role is social engineering. This results in the election of officials who decide to either teach us the world were created in 6 glorious days and then others who wish to teach us that boys and girls are all the same but for a few anatomical variations. That then results in explosions of home schooling, church based schools, tuition vouchers, and school choice allowances so that society can further segregate. What you get when you enforce these ideas isn't harmony, but just reassurance by the right that the left has gone off the deep end and reassurance by the left that the right is committed to living in the dark ages. Then you get Trump. Congratulations. Trump is your fault, not mine. You made me vote for him.

That sounds good to me. But is it not also possible to discuss together why you each think your way is the best? — unenlightened

I suppose if the topic came up, as it did here, in a generally open discussion format, there would be value to such discussion. I'm not sure how the subject is broached among neighbors about what might be the best way to raise one another's respective children. I also don't think the topic would generally arise in a benign educational context, but it would arise by those who wished to alter public policy.

Well public education has to lean one way or another. It cannot be trying to be gender neutral and support gender stereotypes, and my guess is that you want it to go on with the way it is, which is enforcing government ideology, more or less by definition. If I was playing hard ball, I would suggest that gender neutrality as described is rather refraining from imposing an ideology of what character is appropriate to each sex. — unenlightened

What are the schools doing now to enforce gender roles? I see it in sports for obvious reasons, but within the educational environment, where do you see it? I also don't concede the point of necessary bias, as in the schools must either be enforcing gender neutrality or gender role play. They could accept a neutral role (the very topic of this discussion is neutrality after all), meaning they don't care what the kids do. The question of how boys ought to be is just not something the schools even need to address.

This is a misrepresentation of the debate we're having. Education is ideological one way or the other. Separating boys and girls is as ideological as mixing them; gender non-neutral schools are as ideological as gender-neutral schools. Getting kids to sing the national anthem at school is enforcing an ideology. Banning it in every school would be enforcing a different one. If your contention is that the prevailing ideology is not an ideology because you're blind to it then you're a classic victim of ideology. So, the debate we're having is about education policy, which changes all the time, and characterizing it as a novel attempt to put the government in charge of ideology and morality is just an attempt to wiggle out of the responsibility to actually think about the issues at hand. — Baden

Well, let's properly represent things. The grand Swedish experiment appears to be limited to a handful of pre-school schools comprised of 1 to 2 year olds where the teachers let boys dance and play with dolls and girls were encouraged to yell "NO!" and be boisterous. It also looks really cold there. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/world/europe/sweden-gender-neutral-preschools.html.

I find it very hard to believe those schools had any lasting impression on the kids, but I'd assume the parents who choose to send their kids to such schools did. If the Baden kids went to school in rural Mississippi, despite however backwards their views might be, I'd suspect they'd come out sounding a whole lot like papa Baden, largely because years of attempted indoctrination through the schools can be unraveled with a single well timed eye roll from dad.

In terms of what gender enforcement is occurring in our schools today, it certainly isn't through a formalized effort. I'm sure the schools are reflective of society in general and there's de facto gender role enforcement, but I can't recall a class where the teachers taught boys how to be proper boys and girls proper girls. Had a girl wished to take wood shop in highschool, she could have. We had one such pioneer in my woodshop class.

So what exactly do you propose we change here? Are you proposing some formalized indoctrination class?

And, for the record, American students don't sing the national anthem each morning. They say the Pledge of Allegiance. I suppose that is indoctrination, enforcing the controversial idea that Americans be American.

Are you saying rather than change things for the better, we should do the stupid thing because the stupid people won't listen to us anyway? Seems you sorely lack the—how you say?—American can-do attitude. :victory: — Baden

It's a good tactic, but being on my A game today, I won't fall for the tactic of changing my mind for fear of being called unAmerican.

I have no doubt we could force everyone to believe as the liberals, the conservatives, the Jews, the Christians, or even the Muslims. My objection is fairly consistent here, and that is the government really needs to butt out of such things, and maybe pay attention to the fact that Johnny can't read or add. Let's leave to the Baden household how to raise his rugrats and the Hanover house how to raise his. I trust some, probably most, of our educators to educate, but I'm not so trusting in their ability (or really their right) to indoctrinate. You seem very open to the idea that public education ought to be in charge of enforcing government ideology and morality, and I have a bit more of a problem with that. I cringe equally at the idea of my kids being morally advised by Obama as I do Trump.

Beyond this specific argument, in any case, looms the issue of how culture, even namby-pamby culture, imprints sexual identity and where do we go to get an objective a view as possible on what's desirable in that field? The psychologist? The biologist? The philosopher? — Baden

The question isn't where we ought get our direction on how kids ought be raised, but who ought be deciding how one should raise one's kids. What I ought to eat for breakfast is a question all sorts of people might best answer for me, but I ought be the one who ultimately decides, even if you think I'm wrong. As long as I'm not clearly causing damage and my decisions not overwhelmingly dangerous, I get to decide how to raise my children. I am quite certain I am a better parent than most, and if my parenting decisions could be imposed on many young families, their children would be propelled to far greater success than they would relying upon the backwards working class values of their parents. I submit that it's far better however to allow others to do as they may, despite the idiocy of their not adhering to the Hanoverian principles of parenting. In fact, I daresay the world would be better off had you been raised by my principles. We'd be spared so much nonsense, and your income would be far greater..

So, if the fears that gender-neutral schools are a damagingly disruptive form of socialization that perverts our children's genetically programmed understanding of sex differences are wrong, and this form of education merely serves to undermine socialized stereotypes that are a hangover from a less enlightened past, should we not all get on board? — Baden

It seems that everyone turns to Sweden to prove whatever liberal proposition they need to, which leads me to believe that it's pretty hard to fuck anything up in Sweden. They live in a homogeneous utopia, where everyone is responsible and hard working and washes and dries their own plates. I think they could remove the locks from their prisons and no one would leave, proving once and for all that locks aren't needed to keep people in.

My issue is that I don't see a problem with boys being boys and girls being girls, so I don't really care to change things. If my boy wanted to play with dolls, and assuming my beating the hell out of him daily didn't adequately deter him (a joke), I'd be fine with it. In truth, I don't care, and I'd love and support my kids just the same, but I don't see any issue with me buying him fire trucks, punching gloves that make explosion sounds, and Nerf guns and not giving him tea sets and dolls. He seems to get along with boys and girls just fine today.

Since we're speaking about politics, we also have to be sensitive to other people's views, even if we think they're scientifically unsupportable. Societal harmony is a goal I'd think, and I don't think that would be achieved by informing all those with religious leanings who find designated male/female roles highly significant that they are to abandon those views and come in tune with the times. As I've said, the issue isn't pressing and the harms not so significant that it requires a marching out of experts to right the ways of the primitive traditionalists once and for all. Why wage this culture war? What do you expect to gain other than polarization? Can you not just let the stupid be stupid? You'll be afforded ample opportunity to smugly declare their stupidity if that's what you need. They're not listening to you anyway.

They're not, they're making policy for psychological practice, i.e. for psychologists, which is what they're supposed to do. Why can't you let them have their cake and you eat yours? Why the defensiveness? — Baden

The APA isn't a self contained group, interested in staying only in its own lane. They wish to exert political influence.

Not so. Do you suppose that one of the foremost thinkers that ever inhabited this planet would espouse a system that permitted that? There's an art to identifying the correct categorical imperative to apply in a given situation, and once found, any other falls away. If there should exist no CI such that it would prevent the universe from burning to the ground, then just maybe.. — tim wood

I disagree. If you avoid a moral judgment based upon the negative consequences, you're not Kantian.

Americans seem to sometimes exhibit a particular psychosis concerning government involvement, but the APA is not a government agency. So I wonder what the issue is with a group of private citizens providing their view? — Echarmion

I'm not trying to censor their beliefs, but more so just trying to relegate them to the role of jeering from the sideline. They can say whatever they want, but I don't want them making parenting policy for the masses.

And no, there's no psychosis in questioning government. Do you need examples of why that is so?

These are guidelines for psychologists dealing with kids. And, yes, if someone brings their kid to a psychologist, the presumption is that they want that expert to "weigh in" on things. I'm not seeing the offensiveness here. — Baden

This discussion deals with what policy ought be adopted by a society in raising children, with the OP suggesting gender neutrality is a defensible objective. My objection would be in that policy being enforced on others who haven't asked for direction. Good parenting is as much based upon personal morality and tradition as it is a science, and it would be an intrusion to enforce the opinions of psychologists upon parents if they've not sought out those opinions.

Suppose an undercover cop was assigned to infiltrate a gang - a particularly gruesome gang. In order to join the gang they make you pass an initiation, which consists of them kidnapping a person and having you kill them. Would killing them be morally wrong?

Before you answer please consider the following facts that might have weight in your decision.

- The undercover officer had no idea about the initiation test, they were unaware that they'd be required to kill an innocent person to join.
- There are too many gang members present for the undercover officer to fight back and possibly save the kidnapped victim.
- If the officer refuses, the gang will kill both of them.

Thanks in advance for your answers. — Taneras

These are the sorts of questions that divide the Kantianists from the Utilitarians. The former will allow the universe to burn to the ground before they allow a moral rule to be violated, consequences be damned. The latter would just add up the pain and tears from option A versus B and then choose.

I think that it would be hard to judge a man harshly for choosing either option, but I think we can all agree that the true morally corrupt were the gang members. Of course, these hypotheticals need not require there be a morally corrupt agent. You could have asked if it were ok to cook and serve several babies in order to save a dozen others who had been shipwrecked.

Whereas, the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous. — unenlightened

Americans, don't you know, wish to be left alone to their own devices, permitted to do whatever they want? The offensiveness of seeing a boy clothed in pink is dwarfed by the offensiveness that the schools, the government, or any APA "expert" knows better how to raise my kids and thinks he or she has the right to weigh in on it.

My assumption, and it seems to bear out in the Swedish example, is that modern society doesn't require regimented male/female roles so much anymore, and it's entirely possible to live happily ever after never being exposed to them. Whether there is an innate inclination for boys to rough house and girls to play house, maybe, but it's doubtful that not catering to those innate drives will amount to much harm. It's also doubtful that raising boys like traditional boys and girls like traditional girls is going to do much harm either, assuming there is no abusiveness or humiliation in the process.

This strikes me as a government intrusion issue more than an issue of conservatives trying to demand how their neighbors raise their children.

Yes, overuse of the quote — S

Not to interrupt, but I agree that overuse is bad

function can also be bad — S

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

This is why I love you. Let's get married. I hear that there are some beautiful churches in Dover. There's this one church in particular which I have my heart set on, close by those lovely white cliffs. — S

The church in Dover sounds nice, but there are a few problems. First, Dover is far away from me and I'm not sure it's worth the flight. Second, I was more thinking a synagogue. Third, I think we're going to have to convince the immigration officials that our marriage isn't a sham just to give you citizenship in the US so that you can avoid the consequences of Brexit. Fourth, since man on man love cannot result in disposable offspring, we'll have to adopt children for that purpose, and I understand there is red tape involved in that process, especially for those who have previously incinerated their children. If I had my druthers, I'd prefer adopting and disposing Dutch children as the best they'd have ever achieved is becoming a Dutch adult, and their value is just above a piece of straw and just below a chewing gum wrapper based upon the International Human Worth Scale (IHWS).

On an unrelated note, does anyone know how much it would cost to hire an incinerator for the day? — S

I don't think we need a whole day. We can throw a whole lot of fuckers in there in just under an hour. I have some evidence from some other shit I did a while ago that I also need to incinerate, so we can do all that at once.

A long post I know, but comprehensive I think.

I take your subjective emotive position as primitive and undeveloped and rife with problems because it doesn't offer a reason (as it's emotive) for me to accept your position. If you like murder and ice cream, but I don't, I don't know how you're going to convince me of either. We're just dealing with preference under your theory.

I'm not denying an immediate intuitive reaction people have when faced with moral issues, like feeling repulsed by murder. This is not an entirely rational reaction I'll admit, but it's not entirely emotive. There are good reasons, after all, for believing murder wrong, as in it would destroy society. Matters of conscience are more complicated than just emotive preference for things, like ice cream.

I called your position primitive because I do agree that we start with these intuitive reactions to situations, but we then derive principles for deciphering the morality of hard cases. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are two efforts of providing such principles. I think we all agree that few if any actually keep the categorical imperative in their head at all times and use it to decide right from wrong, but that's not to say it might not describe the process many undertake intuitively.

We also have to admit that some often feel emotional repulsion to things that they morally ought not feel such repulsion for (e.g. homosexuality, mixed race marriages) and we must admit that some feel a lack of emotional repulsion when they morally ought to (e.g. child molesters, serial killers). The idea that we can logically convince the morally misguided to change their emotional preference makes as much sense as logically convincing someone to like ice cream who doesn't. We do, though, change people's minds when it comes to moral questions, which means something more is at play than simply emotional reaction.

In the examples I gave of people having an inappropriate moral compass, all have a certain underlying principle that is being violated. Namely, each shows a lack of respect for autonomy and deprives people of the power of their own decision making. This principle that drives much of moral theory must therefore be applied consistently throughout other moral decisions. So, for example, if I find homosexuality abhorrent, my mind could be changed by pointing out that my moral rejection requires that I ignore the moral principle of affording people the same autonomy I insist upon providing people in all other situations. Assuming I'm reasonable, I then will reconsider and then take a permissive view on homosexuality, perhaps while even maintaining my emotional repulsion to it. It is the logic, not the emotion, then that drives the final decision.

So, back to abortion. If we accept that we must protect individual autonomy at a certain level in order to be moral people, we then must figure out who has the right to this protection. We generally say that people do, and for reason, we must decide who is a person. The fetus is a hard case because it tests our ability to offer a fine tuned definition, but find a definition we must. Throwing our arms up (ala @Banno) to the notion of definitions is too easy. We all know the limitations of definitions and we all know the problems of essentialism, but just because we can't figure out an exact and always accurate definition of a cup doesn't suggest we don't know when we have a cup and when we do. My response then is as it was, which is that we have to offer a definition of "person" that liberally protects things that might not entirely be people, simply because the destruction of something that might be a person is so morally wrong.

I was never the only person who judges it to be wrong, so it was never wrong only for me. There were always others. And you're one of them, surely. So why do I need to convince you? — S

This is non-responsive.

The question was asked so that you could provide your basis so that I would know what you relied upon to determine that infanticide was murder. Whatever principles you rely upon should be usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases. This, of course, assumes your principles are logical and not simply emotive, but if they are emotive, then I'd have expected you to say that in response to the question I posed, as opposed to simply posing another question of your own.

I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards. — S

Alright, why is murdering infants wrong other to you?

Is there a question here?

No objection whatsoever to ethical analysis generally. A declaration of ethical subjectivism? Why not? — S

It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there.

I meant that there's a variation within a particular range to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic. — S

There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is?

I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in objective morality. — S

You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference.

You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you. — AJJ

Why was a I a human being the minute I began to develop? If you keep saying it, does it just become true?

If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table?

No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. Your rules are not the rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own. — S

This strikes me as a global objection to ethical analysis generally and a declaration of ethical subjectivism,

You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical. If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me. If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos.

The equivocation issue arises here in how you're using "state's rights." As to abortion regulation, the Court was examining the Constitutional limit on government power generally, which in this case happened to deal with a specific state law. Roe v. Wade would apply equally even if the abortion regulation examined were a federal law and not a state law. Their use of the phrase "state's right" was synonymous with government's right.

The Civil War "state's right" issue was a 10th Amendment argument, arguing the federal government was improperly imposing its power on the individual states. The term states' rights here means the actual states, as opposed to the federal government.

Reject the CA, if you see something better. — Banno

I'll accept the CA, but reject your criteria you've offered. I'm fine with accepting the conclusion that we will never define the essential characteristics of a person, but I instead fall back on the idea that I know a conceptus is not a person but that a newborn is. The precise delineating line is unclear, so within the grey area, I give the benefit of doubt to personhood.

I don't shrink from ensoulment either, as I do believe the newborn is sacred, yet the embryo not. Religious talk causes discomfort I know, so substitute ensoulment with simple becoming.

And the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery: a rank piece of sophistic re-writing of history. — tim wood

This misunderstands @Rank Amateur's post. Roe v. Wade is in fact about the state's (meaning the government's) limits and rights to regulate abortion. The civil war, to the extent it was about state's rights, was about the authority of the federal government to dictate it's authority upon the states (meaning the individual states of the Confederacy). I think you're equivocating with the term "state" here.