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.

Wrong question it seems. How valuable is it? — S

A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood.

I destroyed the first one. Tree or acorn?

Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do. — Banno

I'm not sure how you define "approach" here other than a definition that works only sometimes.

Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman. — Banno

I don't understand how this follows. You started out trying to generally define personhood and then threw down a balancing test to use when deciding fetal rights versus women's rights.

If I value oak trees, then I should value acorns, despite the fact that acorns are not oak trees. — S

Sure, I'll value them both, but lets say there's a need for a law that prohibits cutting down oak trees. Do you get fined for stepping on an acorn? What's the difference between the two?

Yeah, you tell him, Hanover! Stop dancing around the irrelevant question, AJJ! — S

I'll pay attention to you in a moment. I see you've got your hand raised.

As to AJJ, his position is explicitly that certain things are clearly classified as human and others not, so he does have answer the question, even if you believe you have a better solution that avoids his problem.

The qualities listed by Nussbaum are sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

A newborn is a person. — Banno

Yes, but what about the drunk homeless man, asleep in the gutter? Shall we kill this insentient, unemotional, inaffectionate, physically unhealthy, and irrational hunk of flesh before he awakes and sobers up?

A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right? — AJJ

But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not?

So we're concerned about the potential future of the foetus (to be a deformed child). Yet earlier Banno was saying that it isn't reasonable to consider the potential future of the foetus (to be a child) to determine that abortion is wrong. I'm highlighting the apparent inconsistency between these two positions. — Michael

I'm not sure it is inconsistent. Only people can sue, not fetuses, so if you abort the fetus, it never gained any rights to do anything. The thing that sues is the person, complaining his mother smoked, the factory produced noxious fumes, or drug company failed to warn mothers of the dangers.

True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. — Banno

Then your conclusion is your starting point. If you start with the idea that only people have rights and that fetuses aren't people, then what's there to debate? I'd think the issue for debate would be whether your definition of "people" is sustainable, especially in light of the fact that many of those we consider "people" do not have the attributes you list. For example, an infant, a coma patient, a severely brain injured person, a drunk person, an asleep person, and many others would not be rational or autonomous. I could accuse you of ensouling people as well, arguing that the reason such people are afforded rights is that they have that magical sprinkling of humanity in them, call it a soul or what you will.

Persons aren't the only thing of value. — S

Are you arguing things other than humans have inherent value, and are you suggesting that value exists without humans?

A sperm, an egg or a random cell are not human beings. Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are. — AJJ

Each cell grows and each organ grows, so they do become more than what they are.

Regardless, you're adding arbitrary rules here. Previously you claimed that a embryo was entitled to protection under the law because it was human life, but now I'm to learn it must be human life that is capable of becoming something else. As I've pointed out, my liver satisfies your definition, so you'll need to continue working out the nuances of your definition.

We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not the sake of the thoughtless mother. — Michael

The law is consistent with only people having rights. The fetus could not sue for its injuries, only the injured child could. What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children. Partying moms to be yield people like you.

Since I'm a lawyer, and law is all I like to talk about, I'd also point out that wrongful life suits are generally not recognized, and when they are, there are limitations (except apparently by the Dutch). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life That is, you can generally not sue because you were born and argue they ought to have aborted you knowing how bad off you'd be. That is such a lovely concept, though, son's advocate suing mom for not aborting him when she had the chance.

If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end. — Banno

You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a person, it cannot be an means to an end.

It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development — AJJ

Your comment does properly recognize that the pro-choice crowd uses an arbitrary moment to define when human life begins, but you fail to recognize that the pro-life crowd does as well. Conception is an arbitrary moment to declare the existence of human life, as is quickening. as is the trimester framework.

If it is so clear, then you must explain why killing a live sperm or live egg is not murder, or why killing any live cell on a human body is not murder.

People claim to be appalled by abortion but then they tolerate this: — Andrew4Handel

Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world.

Why are the people around me so stupid? — AppLeo

Do you live on Jupiter because that is where people go to get more stupider?

I've never been able to get a good education, not so much because of my class standing, my pedigree, or even an unavailability of funding, but more so because any school that would let me in obviously couldn't be that good.

How dare you?! I did not incinerate my children. I would never do such a thing.

I threw them off of a cliff. — S

The incinerator was at the bottom of the cliff though.

Sorry to hear about Fido. Are you doing the full bagpipes sort of funeral or are you throwing him in the county incinerator like you did your children?

Are you going to change your name to Esse? It sounds a bit more feminine I think.

It's going pretty good, I guess. Wish the weekend were longer. The kids are doing well, thanks for asking. The oldest has a birthday coming up. Fun! Fish and chips sound good, but I think the extra crispy ones are a little heavy for my taste. I hope Fido is doing good. He's always been a ball of energy. There's an over the counter treatment for worms you might try. It'll save you a little money. I'm sure your shoes are lovely and knowing your taste, I'm sure they match your dress, although I did think you were a guy. I wasn't aware you were a cross-dresser, but I do admire your courage. I'm sure you make a beautiful man. It is nice to talk to you, and I hope you, Fido, and your transition all go well.

But let's use the perception of the bug. Considering that it is really small compared to us, do you think that it sees us moving slowly? — Paul24

I don't know about bugs, but my cat is pretty small and she seems to move in hyper speed, so that would support your theory that maybe she sees me moving really slow so she's able to swat me faster than I can swat her. On the other hand, I find that worms are really slow, so I can't really find any rhyme or reason to this other than maybe some things are fast and some slow and some have quick perception and some are dull and dimwitted, like a worm.

In this way, testicles are both a representation of pure masculinity and a vulnerability that betrays this very same masculinity. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, but if you call someone a dick, it's not a compliment either, so there's that. Calling a man a pussy also isn't a compliment, but I suppose women could tolerate that insult better, considering it amounts to pointing out their lack of masculine assertiveness which they aren't always expected to have (damn double standards).

Regarding humor, I might laugh if two women were punching one another's breasts like speed bags, or if one took a kick to the hoo-haa and the other cried out "Ouch! My balls!" All of this assumes slapstick cartoon humor where no one is actually getting injured. I, being the sensitive soul that I am, truly never found humor in those videos where someone flew headfirst off their bicycle into a beehive, nor where someone took a kick to the nads. It's not funny, but then again, I'm very sophisticated. If you don't get it, grow a pair of ovaries and call me.

I don't believe any form of speech should be censored, no matter how idiotic, ignorant, hateful or violent. One is either are a proponent of free speech or of censorship and I choose the former. Let the revolutionaries preach the revolution. Let the KKK preach their racism. Let conspiracy theorists talk about how the government is brainwashing you. I don't see why that should bother me, unless they commit violent actions. At that point the authorities should swoop in and enforce the law. — Tzeentch

Counterexamples to consider: Defamatory speech aimed at a particular person, as in me destroying your reputation and causing you to lose your job based entirely upon lies, me refusing to honor an oral contract with you, or me causing imminent danger to the public by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The examples you provided were all of the same sort. They were generalized ideological statements, and they are generally allowed in Western democracies, regardless of their offensiveness. An exception to that would be Germany's limitation on advocacy of Nazism, but that is understandable, considering their particular history.

The prohibition isn't against speech. It's against promising something and not delivering it. — Terrapin Station

Promising something isn't speech? What is it, a rabbit?

"Metre" is a rigid designator for a certain length. — Banno

I'm not being stubborn here, so help me out. What is a rigid designator other than a certain type of precise definition, where a definition of the form X is Y is reducible to X is X because there's perfect synonymity?

Could you provide an example of a flexible designator? My point will be (spoiler alert) that all designators are flexible.

What am I missing?

One's own phenomenal state ought be checked against the phenomenal states of others; do they see what I see? — Banno

That's not commonly done. I don't need verification of whether I see this computer before me or whether I have a headache.

Your point about the difference between my knowing I have a headache, and your knowing I have a headache, is most important. — Banno

Are you not drawing a distinction between knowledge and certainty here? We don't use science to obtain certainty. A scientific experiment is based upon its analysis of observations. Our observations may or may not comport with reality, but what we're assessing is our observations and trying to figure out what brings them about.

I just think the counterexample you provide in this OP is of a different category and not really an attack on the proposition that all knowledge is obtainable through the scientific method. I think a better counterexample would be something like morality as that at least stands in the same category of shareable knowledge.

The metre stick is used to set a specific length, designated rigidly by the name "Metre".

A metre is hence the same length in all possible worlds. — Banno

So is the essence of the meter stick its length and not that it's a stick. If it were in the form of a cat, is it still a meter stick. Is a meter stick the same as a metre stick. We don't even have a rigid name for it is seems.

It’s a contingent truth that he was president because we can logically conceive of him not being president. It’s a necessary truth that he is not a cow, for example. We wouldn’t be talking about Nixon then. — Noah Te Stroete

Why can't I conceive of him being a cow? If he had a Nixon face, a Nixon personality, a Nixon Watergate scandal, and Ford was his VP, yet he had a bovine everything else, he'd be Nixon. I get @Wallows essentialism concerns. Necessary and contingent truths are just another way of saying primary and secondary qualities aren't they?

Sure, if the scientific method begins with a question, you can step back and ask where that curiosity came from, which is obviously from some prior observation and I suppose some hard wired rationality, intuition, and maybe emotion. But the question isn't where the method came from, but it's what it is. Otherwise, you're left with saying that every primitive culture engages in the firsr step of the scientific method every time they observe something. I would think it's a major step forward to pose a question for testing, and that's when you've engaged in a real method.

I already answered this. Re contracts, it's not any sort of speech restriction. It's not stopping anyone from saying anything they want to say. It's just that I'd enforce contracts--if you promise A in exchange for B and do not deliver, there would be legal repercussions. — Terrapin Station

No law literally and physically stops speech, but all speech regulation, whether it be anti-defamation law or contractual law, imposes legal repercussions when violated. You've not presented a meaningful distinction between the two.

I don't need a method to know I have a headache. — Banno

Interesting response. As noted in my listing of the scientific method steps above, all of the data gathered in step 2 ("Gather information and resources (observe)") would be accepted without formal method. You'd just have the phenomenal state and accept it as true, making phenomenal states foundational.

Possibly the scientific method provides a basis for why we have these phenomenal states, but does not provide a basis to determine whether phenomenal states accurately reflect reality. That issue is within the purview of metaphysics, and just like that of morality, is not addressable through the scientific method.

I might be a bit old fashioned, but in my day the first step in the scientific method was observation, and that was the the way to discover the truth of things. — unenlightened

Per Wiki, the steps of the scientific method:

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Do any members know of any other tool or method that we have available to provide support or not for the truth of anything. — Scribble

The question relates to "anything," so as it applies to questions of morality, purpose, and meaning of life, those are matters we don't rely upon the scientific method for. Our method for arriving at such things is rationality, intuition, and reliance upon tradition (to name a few).

If you can't offer a reasonable response to the question of why your position allows enforcement of contractual speech acts, despite your claim that no speech can be regulated, then just say so. To divert on this path about the definition of "proper" isn't interesting or clever, but just obviously evasive, and possibly (although I can't perfectly read your intent) trollish.

If you were to ask me if moral stances have anything to do with what's "proper," I'd say "No." — Terrapin Station

But that's not what I asked. Are you now going to start posing random questions to yourself and answering them?

If you asked me what kind of shirt I was wearing, I'd say red.

But I didn't use the word "proper" anywhere, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying what I am/am not in favor of (well, and what I'd do "if I were king"). — Terrapin Station

Nor did I quote you as having said "proper," so I'm not sure what you're defending yourself against, nor am I even sure you know what you're defending yourself against. If you think I have in substance misstated something you've said, then point that out. At this point, your response is a silly quibble over form, arguing that a particular word in my post didn't appear in your post so it must be an inaccurate account of what you said.

The portion of your post beginning with the word "and" is entirely unresponsive to anything discussed, and suggests I thought something other than the views you were expressing were someone other than your own.

You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically.
— Hanover

Where am I saying that? — Terrapin Station

As to where you're saying its improper to regulate free speech generally:

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station

As to where you're saying it is proper to regulate contracts specifically:

'd not allow contractual fraud, but that's an issue of contractual law, not a speech issue — Terrapin Station

Do you not have a similar ability to scroll up and see what you've previously said? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to whether you were truly trying to alleviate confusion as opposed to being purposefully evasive. I'm thinking I was being too generous

Properly? What sort of question is that? I'm not saying anything about "properly." — Terrapin Station

Yes you are. You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically. Since contracts are a form of speech, I'm asking why the general category is not properly regulated but why a subcategory of that same class is properly regulated.