Scott Mayers

The nominations by him regardless would have been accepted which makes his 'nomination' indifferent to an 'appointment'. I also understand that no one can get a position without nomination. Your threats only prompt some to work harder to oppose. Trump's initial election was itself only due to doubt of his likelihood of succeeding. I know this because I was warning people that his apparent circus show should be takien more serious when others were strongly dismissing his likelihood of his success. While I too am concerned about those on the Left to be absurdly 'woke', it is still relatively safe to vote for them considering the diverse views of similar extremes that exist there. On the Right, this behavior is both default to their ethics and DOMINANT to those who are more in sync with their own form of 'wokeness' that just lacks the label for BEING the traditional power who concentrated their passing of the torch to ONLY their own kind. The Left's 'wokeness' is a reactionary reflection of them using what is normally Right-wing methods (as some of the Left-wing methods have equally been applied by contemporary Rightwingers as well. The dominating power on both sides are those with wealth AND to those most concentrating the passing of inheritance to their own kind. The Left has multiple such cults who simply lack the dominance independently. As such, the conservatives of alternative cults to the traditional fundamentalist are taking the reigns on the Left with only the agreement among them to NOT harm each other while they attack a shared common 'enemy'. They support 'heritage', which is simply an extenstion of regular economic inheritance normally favored by the Right. The tactics used by the Right have always been to exploit others using rhetoric, deception, and misdirection where the Left prior to the information age lacked the Internet as a source of exposing the secrets of manipulation used by different political interests of all party ideals. As such, the 'woke' factors are being used BY similar thinkers hoping to exploit the power of reflecting the tactics used against them from the beginning of time. The left wing parties for all its flaws prevents the extreme views from STAYING consistent. So much of the extreme wokeness is temporal as everyone normally unnoticed for their issues are being heard for the first time in history. Much of this is also due to technology such as the Internet as well as 'Smart' devices which permit 'feedback' noise that make people deluded into thinking they are more popular than they actially are. If we think of the world as being one big ghetto run by gangs. The 'Right' would be supported by the traditional mobs while the 'Left' are run by independently weak gangs who recognize that they can collect their interests to assure that they can compete with the bigger gang. But even though the majority of people everwhere are less affliated with particular gangs, they are cleverly being turned against each other and isolated by those commanding distinct alignments to these gangs. The 'democratic' side (and the name of Leftwing parties representative counter to 'republican' authoritarianism) refers to the people being treated EQUAL in power; the Right believes in power to the INHERENT wealth classes as though they are Royalty deserving of EXCEPTIONAL voting power than the one-person-to-one-vote ideal of democracy. They are deluded into interpreting their successes as completely self-earned without recognizing that the most advantageous power for being more wealthy (or selectively more 'beautiful' in artificial standards) is the greater capacity to FAIL more oftern WITHOUT equal consideration of those less fortunate. For the poorer and more concentrated racially segregated classes, failure may only be permissible once and make them liable to greater penalties in contrast to those with better standards. As such, those who were forcefully segregated FROM beneficial wealth are aligning with their own 'kind' in the same way the wealthy normally do by passing economic inheritance onto only their own relatives (nepotism). Thus the wokeism itself happening by the Left is the modelling of the "inheritance" rights normally held by conservatives by monetizing culture as equal TO a form of inheritance that where respected enables those who normally lose for failing once to better succeed. So you are the limp biscuit here deluded in your interpretation of what is happening today. I can and do fight against those on 'my' side on the same concerns. It is changing in the same way a new letter is added to the LBGTQ+ list of all that are simply 'non-heterosexual' in shared meaning. They keep growing because of another screaming 'me too' which WILL eventually become moot once an H is applied to the end of that list. ["H' is for the complementary heterosexual who will eventually also be the last member making the distinctions no longer concerning.]

True. But I'm glad I'm not the Trump-Dick-Sucker here!

Does it make you feel more siginficantly rational for labeling me by an acronym rather than debating the issue competently?

"Removal" of the judges to me is not killing them!! It is retracting of their position as judges. And I in particular am arguing this removal based upon the nature of their nomination by a poisoned authority. That is, IF Donald Trump is proven criminal by any standards, I am suggesting the removals given his choice to select them where his capacity to 'select' in the interest of the people is proven to be suspect. The timing of the last one to his realization of losing his Presidency is severely suspect given the domination of the court by his own selection can skew how they might interpret any appeal of his for ANY future convictions. That would make him above the law IN PRINCIPLE! And THAT is what you are supporting. Call it what you will. I assert that you are supporting authoritarianism based upon your support of his Presidency regardless of the fact that his acts are indifferent to acting as a sovereign dictator, like a King. I don't support any violent acts against the judges I question. It is not their 'fault' to BE nominated and their coinciding favor to BE political would have to be a separate issue.

I already agreed that I do not evaluate the life of a zygote or preborn POTENTIAL child as signficantly worthy in contrast to the living person. I do not believe that life before birth are persons in light of the inability to define whether they have a common sensation of things like pain (or pleasure) and that terminating them is not 'murder'. I compared this to other animals in which you need to address. Isn't eating eggs literally eating aborted chicks? At what point does the life being developed within the egg turns from being one that lacks sensation to one that does? If the animals we eat are invalid relative to us, are we not invalid in our treatment against them in kind? This is not a question of whether I prefer other animals over humans but whether they are not 'naturally' equal in their 'right' to live relative to themselves. And if so, Nature itself does not care whether we eat other animals or if other animals eat us. Nature does not specify life as 'superior' nor 'inferior'. As to whether an unborn entity is or is not worthy to justly YOUR 'right' to respect, if Nature favored your view, .....if God favored your view.... then the death of a validly worthy being would be saved regardless of what we could do. So why is it YOUR right to impose limitations about others where the question still exists about whether it is signficantly valuable to Nature that is at question? If Nature apart from human intervention should be preferred, then NO form of civilization matters and should be 'aborted'. That is, if you think that our direct technological capacity to abort seems 'unnatural' to you, then why are you accepting the benefits of any technology. [This assumes you may be dubious of the act in the way one might feel if they had to choose to kill one man to save many. The positive act psychologically affects your perception to chose to kill another even if the nature of it is just.] You dehumanize the grown human person opting to abort over the mere potential life of a baby because you prioritize a belief that the potential child's life is paramount over the actual certain life of the woman as a host to it. Note too that while my own belief about life is more nihilistic, this is NOT the case for the vast majority of those believing in a right to abortion. Most do not believe, for instance, in abortion close to birth (within the last trimester). The degree of life for most is based upon structure of the lifeform (its 'stage' of development) with the added assumption of sufferring as pre-existing. My stonger position would even place question upon babies born as having a capcity to suffer (or find pleasure) but require LEARNING to feel as they develop past birth. So it is unlikely that the unborn baby would even 'care' whether it exists or not. It is ONLY a religioius belief to assume so. I DO favor at least a need to defend life post birth regardless. But the likely reason we lack memory of these times with more force than we do later is because our early memory is 'anethetized'. A baby has unnecessary networked links in the brain that would probably be as potentially halucinogenic and uncomfortable to us if we were to experience it consciously as adults. A similar factor of nature that hunters should know is that when an animal is killed, if it isn't killed quickly, its meat tastes 'wild' due to reactionary chemistry that pain amplifies where it suffers longer. This points to the anesthetizing capacity of living things to evolve mechanisms that reduce the suffering more siginficantly to the younger creatures that tend to become victims of another predator. It is unlikely then that an unborn baby 'feels' suffering under the operation of abortion. As to anything that you may otherwise BELIEVE about souls being implanted by God into the zygote, there is no real suffering that remotely compares to the nature of death we ALL eventually succumb to at some point in our lives regardless.

I addressed this in my last post but after you posted this. I showed that if you accuse the proabortion of dehumanizing the zygote, you are counter-dehumanizing the value of the woman to chose to abort. Thus, you are evaluating one human life above another as your (1) here. You have not defined 'murder' and need to read my above two posts to note my reference of defining this term BY govenerments, not Gods. I do not devalue life, I realistically interpret our human life as equivalent in value BY NATURE to every other part of nature. This includes anything by nature and would be equally applicable to non-living chemistry and physics. If WE evaluate ourselves as MORE worthy by nature, then we should respect ALL of Nature's existence as equally worthy.

life is a right cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion first you call into question the value of human life to justify abortion then you call into question the value of the unborn child relative to other humans to justify abortion it seems most who support abortion cannot justify it to themselves without first devaluing human life to do so and you are clearly one of them "life is a right" It is only a 'right' to those who are predefined as living PERSONS themselves in law, not to the contested determination of whether an unborn potential life is a "person". Again, this decision of 'value' is still one among people to negotiate and not some 'right' that exists outside of the our artificial creation of it through the auspices of governments made up of humans. That is, there is nothing outside of our preference to call it 'right' to BE a right. The desire to assert what is 'right' independently also belongs to EACH AND EVERY lifeform. That is, to a cow, 'living is a 'right'" because it is most favorable to their OWN condition. So... "cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans" Would these other animals agree with you? If it were natural for them to serve our 'right' to eat, is it not their 'right' not to be murdered too? "dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion" And humanizing unborn potential children as though they have some superior 'right' over their host's life is a key tactic of the anti-abortion advocates to dehumanize the woman's value as inferior by contrast.

You added this after the above. "first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument" No. I said that women cannot hypocritically argue for a unique right to their body without accepting other conflicting issues, such as how laws are also made to force the male who impregnated her to accept responsibility SHOULD the women uniquely decide to KEEP the child; I also added that where the child is born IN NEED, the same hypocrisy extends if society is expected to support their welfare. Your anti-abortion view also conflicts on the conservative side because your side also dislikes ANY supports for welfare in general, let alone the fact of your feigned compassion for the baby's. "then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down" This is your delusion, not mine. Eugenics was considered evil for taking away the choice of some to WANT to have children AND, more definitively, to foster an "improvement" (a value) of the human genetic strain. It was abusive because it presumed a sound interpretion of what is 'improved'. [I happen to have an old Eugenics book somewhere that was based specifically on religious explanations of appropriate 'virtue'.. It COMMANDED what is or is not 'good' genetic selection of one's progeny.] So I was NOT arguing Eugenics at all. You misinterpreted the argument for humanity as being WITHOUT intrinsic value BY NATURE as though they are unvaluable. This is like how one presumes an Atheist as one who 'denies God's existence' rather than being WITHOUT a posited belief in some magical but invisible beings. I argued that we have to also be concerned for imposing poverty (a living environemental, not genetic) condition. My preference for using laws regarding the prevention of overpopulation concerns is dependent upon the environment's capacity to sustain all life (already existing) unrealistically. "Birth controls" do not imply evaluating the worth of living beings specifically and do not require eugenic interests. For instance, a law requiring limiting ones' right to get pregnant before a negotiated age (usually 18 for most Western countries), is an example. It penalizes those who choose to have sex based upon something we ALL share,...aging, ....not their particular 'virtue' in some assumed standard of 'quality' of sexual selection, such as one's beauty, their mental functionality, or race.

"murder is not a right" Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it! ...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?

So given I gave you more than enough proof of your position being unsound you opt to dismiss it as too complex and irrelevant? Without repeating the post, you can 'summarize' it as expressing how and why your preference for anti-abortion is invalid (not able to be logically 'fit') with closure. To ease your mind regarding your God's disapproval of abortion: If He is sufficiently powerful, he doesn't need privileged humans to be His vangaurd. If He gave us all 'free will', why would he expect SOME SELECT human-representatives to uniquely be able to DEFINE where the limits of ALL others' freedoms should end? If you interpret value as meaning we all agree to the same ideas of 'good' and 'evil' intrinsically, you misinterpret your personal evaluation of what is 'good' or 'bad' FOR YOU as coinciding with God's prematurely. [I think you need to wait post-life judgement by your God to decide whether you WERE 'good' or 'bad' independently, or you believe you represent God and so LACK 'free choice' to believe for 'knowing' God]

See, you interpret government as being a place to EXPRESS your own personal preferences about things beyond the capacity of living people to know, such as your personal religion. You also interpret FROM your religion (whichever one of many exists) and this biases your interpretation that government laws that express 'value' however 'good' are DUE TO your religion. I interpret government as BEING the contemporary and tentative beliefs about functionality among us as HUMANS who DEFINE our collective idea of 'value' through the laws we make. That is, there is nothing valid about expecting govnerment to accept particular religious views but rather that our governments serve to make laws that participating members negotiate and agree to by some means regardless of religious views to serve. As such, govnerment should not be a system to serve YOUR particular beliefs that are contentious in their ability to be provable nor disprovable. So a religious argument regarding whether women should or should not have abortion is 'religious' if you think that you have some wisdom of God (or 'goodness' in general) to know which is right or wrong for all. I also mentioned capitalist self-interests to which you think is some 'opposing' anti-religious position. [The defintion of 'dichotomy' requires accepting OPPOSING positions, not shared ones.] The capitalist (which can and often DO include the religious), would be interested in population growth as an advantage. This is a contrasting interest beyond just the religious alternative for why one on the conservative right would still be interested in preventing birth controls. I was covering the grounds for those non-religious who MAY still agree to a ban on abortion. The example of how more people implies more supply over demand then suffices to explain anyone's general beliefs against abortion. That though would be for long-term interests and so the religious view is the most predominant problem here.

A dichotomy is usually referring to polar opposition by contradiction. Just because I opted to reference two examples does not make them 'dichotomies'. ANY belief regarding virtue of life of early dependent development is 'religious' because it treats them as though they suffer such extreme loss that needs attention. Also belief in the virtue of life should not be hypociritcally accepted for humans when it is not accepted for those living things we eat. To believe WE are somehow 'special' to Nature with values of 'good' and 'evil' are themselves RELIGIOUS period. I expressed humans as indifferent to viruses and bacteria given we tend to not care about whether we can control our tendency to overpopulate regardless of any reflection upon the environment. Note too that viruses are not necessarily living things in contrast to bacteria. Their nature is similar to a mere chainletter that just uses any resources it encounters to replicate itself. And yet this is the foundational basis for life. So the comparison is about our DEFAULT tendency to copy (have babies) without rational insight. Religion is just a posthoc reflection of ourselves as 'superior' using a pretense of some Nature shared by ALL living things as though all other life is there to serve us. So stop being hypocritical to argue for some 'value' of life that you have no actual PROOF exists beyond your artificial religious preferences. As to non-religious justifications such as how overpopulation favors the capitialist greed in the same sense that viruses don't limit their own numbers, this too is 'religious' if you think that it is a 'right' to profit over others misfortunes. To add to the two that you mistaken for a 'dichotomy', there is a serious hypocrisy on those like yourself who may believe that you should have 'freedoms' independently to capitalize upon others' weaknesses selfishly, with sole power to rule over your own families as you wish, that contrasts hypocritically when you demand SPECIAL privileges to even CARE about whether someone else with unique indepence should choose abortion or not. Your 'side' also favors hunting and 'culling' through war without blinking which proves contradictory (and thus a 'dichotomy' on your side's part) to value of life. Do only helpless dumb but cute living dependent babies have more 'value' EARNED in life with better virue than aged living adults who have? Why is it okay to favor the CERTAINLY understood 'living' beings as being worthy of suffering but not those NON-CERTAIN unborn beings that only have the same kind of emotional compassion we have in favoring puppies or kittens to adopt over those are fully grown? You are either religious in some way or in favor of the potential advantages that overpopulations represent to your own interests regardless of the literal compassion of the unborn. These are 'contrasts' most representive of the conservative politics involved. They lead to dichotomies in rationale given the contradictions of other beliefs you hold that are hypocritical.

Men do not have the power where it just happens to coincide with her own desires. But women ALONE have the VETO-power outside of rape or other similar violations which has empowered them to SELECT the very kind of males that evolve to be the more physically dominant. The point in this argument for me is that it is moot to argue that women's sole 'right' to decide is at issue.

And I would only agree to the fact that the mother's 'freedom' is not the signficant argument they should be making. However, the opposing conservative side's signficant arguers come from religiously biased people are also NOT concerned for the child but for their social dimishing power of influence OR, for the strict capitalists on top, they only want MORE children BY especially the poor because it increases demand for jobs and empowers employers to pay their workers less. We need populuation controls to reduce the burden on Earth itself given we are indistinguishable from bacteria or viruses in our evolved drive for derining value by self interests alone. So I'm FOR abortion but agree that the women's 'right to their body' is not appropriate to argue without looking at the hypocrisy of the power that women always have had. [Like how women alone through time have always had the sole power to decide WHO they mate with beyond rape itself, for instance.]

obviously not pregnancy is not rape equivocating the two is not only stupid but reprehensible Like I said,..."I'm likely missing enough context...." and was just making fun of the latest post I just begun reading on this thread. I'm all for a right to abortion but disagree with the argument defending merely a woman's right to freely decide what she wants. I think that we need means to prevent undesired children and believe that children are NOT merely proprietary rights of parents to independentaly have power over. The complaint about women's right to her body ignores the same side's arguments regarding making the 'father' be held liable for later child supports,.....not to mention for the burden on society where both parent's power to conceive independently impose supports by the people as a whole for those who cannot afford to raise them.