Post by: Westside_Redneck on October 11, 2024, 03:50:19 PM
It's amazing her whole ad was based around the lie that the Republicans are going to initiate a nationwide abortion ban despite the fact that both Trump and Vance stated they will not do such a thing and that the issue is given "back to the states."
There was only one mention of Maui wildfire funding, but it was less than a second. I can't find the ad, but I wanted to mobilize the McDermott voters before the ballots start pouring in a week from today. I'm curious to know if abortion really is an important issue for Hawaii voters. Would the overturning of Roe v. Wade be enough to make these voters vote Democrat as usual?
Somebody should ask the typical Aunty on the street if she's ok with paying $15 for a loaf of bread next time she goes shopping at Crimes Market, because once Kamala becomes president, her price controls, which she plans to implement, will make the cost of groceries in Hawaii unaffordable.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 11, 2024, 04:03:03 PM
That's all they have to run on -- dividing the country using lies and hyperbole while blaming the GOP for the division and hate they create.
Post by: QUIETShooter on October 11, 2024, 04:09:26 PM
Other than that, I don't know what she does in the long stretches in-between.
Great job she has.
Post by: mrgaf on October 12, 2024, 09:20:36 PM
The only times I hear about that bozo lady is when she's running again from her political ads and when her colleagues in Washington DC make fun of her and call her stupid.
Other than that, I don't know what she does in the long stretches in-between.
Great job she has.
Thought she had cancer….
Thought the problem was solved…
You can’t always get what you want….. >:(
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 13, 2024, 04:02:38 PM
Everything else is all equal and not worth much.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Jaco808 on October 15, 2024, 11:32:33 AM
HI's 2 main issues are #1 not trump and #2 vote blue.
Everything else is all equal and not worth much.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I disagree a majority of Americans and people in Hawaii support abortion rights. Hawaii should follow other states and put abortion rights in our constitution.
Post by: Westside_Redneck on October 15, 2024, 04:09:08 PM
I disagree a majority of Americans and people in Hawaii support abortion rights. Hawaii should follow other states and put abortion rights in our constitution.
I agree that the State of Hawaii should come up with formal state-level legislation on the topic of Abortion rights. If anyone listened to what Trump and JD Vance actually said about abortion policy, they said as of the overturning of Roe v Wade each of the states can decide for themselves how they would like to regulate abortion rights. In other words, it is not the Federal government's job to regulate abortions. You will not find a nationwide abortion ban in any of their plans for higher office despite what the "objective news media" tells you.
It will truly be interesting to see how many folks will be lining up at medical centers to get their fetuses squashed once such legislation is formally passed stateside in Hawaii.
Or you could simply tell Kimo he gotta learn to love da rubba and Nani can use da pill :thumbsup:
Post by: Jaco808 on October 15, 2024, 04:31:24 PM
I agree that the State of Hawaii should come up with formal state-level legislation on the topic of Abortion rights. If anyone listened to what Trump and JD Vance actually said about abortion policy, they said as of the overturning of Roe v Wade each of the states can decide for themselves how they would like to regulate abortion rights. In other words, it is not the Federal government's job to regulate abortions. You will not find a nationwide abortion ban in any of their plans for higher office despite what the "objective news media" tells you.
It will truly be interesting to see how many folks will be lining up at medical centers to get their fetuses squashed once such legislation is formally passed stateside in Hawaii.
Or you could simply tell Kimo he gotta learn to love da rubba and Nani can use da pill :thumbsup:
The federal government is there to guarantee freedom to it's citizens. It's why we shouldnt have the states have their own rules on the 1st and 2nd. Abortion is freedom for women for their own body. The government should stay out of what you do to yourself. Same with same sex marriage etc. Let the people choose.
Post by: hvybarrels on October 15, 2024, 04:42:07 PM
The federal government is there to guarantee freedom to it's citizens. It's why we shouldnt have the states have their own rules on the 1st and 2nd. Abortion is freedom for women for their own body. The government should stay out of what you do to yourself. Same with same sex marriage etc. Let the people choose.
When does a fetus become a person and get their own rights? Nobody wants to answer that question definitively.
Post by: Jaco808 on October 15, 2024, 04:53:14 PM
When does a fetus become a person and get their own rights? Nobody wants to answer that question definitively.
When it's born. If it can't survive on its own, the mothers rights is above it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 15, 2024, 07:57:21 PM
When it's born. If it can't survive on its own, the mothers rights is above it.
That's stupid. How many babies are delivered through C-section? Pre-mature? Is a baby in an incubator fair game for killing if it can't live without special medical care? Can you pull the plug on a baby's respirator if it's not brain dead?
When a baby is 1 week old and living outside the womb, are you saying it can be killed? Because that baby can't "survive on its own." It needs someone to feed it, protect it, clean it, change it's diapers, teach it ......
You may want to rethink your definitions. The ones you are using are stupid.
Post by: ren on October 15, 2024, 10:39:46 PM
When it's born. If it can't survive on its own, the mothers rights is above it.
sick
No newborn can survive on its own. A baby can't get its own food nor defend itself from sickos like you.
Post by: rhayder on October 17, 2024, 02:00:14 PM
sick
No newborn can survive on its own. A baby can't get its own food nor defend itself from sickos like you.
Don't be dumb.. you know what he meant.
Post by: macsak on October 17, 2024, 02:10:45 PM
Don't be dumb.. you know what he meant.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2024, 02:27:22 PM
Don't be dumb.. you know what he meant.
I'd tell you to not be dumb, but you can't help it.
I know what he said. "Survive on its own."
At 9 weeks, the baby can be delivered, either through natural birth or C-Section. The baby can be capable of surviving outside the womb the second the baby is delivered, . You'd have us believe there is a significant difference between the baby being in the womb and then outside the womb in just a matter of minutes.
Basically your argument, along with the person who posted it, is that as long as the mother keeps the child in her womb whether or not the child can survive outside of her, she has the right to kill it for any -- or for no -- reason at all.
That's both morally and civilly repugnant.
Your argument has nothing to do with viability and everything to do with proximity. Talk about dumb.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 17, 2024, 02:30:48 PM
I disagree a majority of Americans and people in Hawaii support abortion rights. Hawaii should follow other states and put abortion rights in our constitution.
I said "main". Is abortion rights a deal breaker? I know being GOP is and so is supporting Trump.
Post by: hvybarrels on October 17, 2024, 04:22:05 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2024, 04:31:29 PM
As soon as creepy doctors figure out how to make money on prenatal gender reassignment this abortion conversation will get a lot more complicated for the left. :rofl:
Jurassic Park already gave us that answer.
Blend in a bit of frog DNA at conception, and the youngster will have the ability to change to whichever sex they feel they need to be. No surgery or hormone replacement therapy required.
Problem solved!
:geekdanc: :thumbsup:
Post by: ren on October 17, 2024, 06:05:48 PM
Don't be dumb.. you know what he meant.
Stay behind the yellow line! How many times do the ROs have to remind you?!
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 02:07:22 PM
I said "main". Is abortion rights a deal breaker? I know being GOP is and so is supporting Trump.
Yes abortion rights is one of the important policies that decide my vote. I've voted for the GOP more times than I've voted democrat. I will not vote for Trump. Voted for him once and I regret it.
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 02:09:39 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2024, 02:16:39 PM
Yes abortion rights is one of the important policies that decide my vote. I've voted for the GOP more times than I've voted democrat. I will not vote for Trump. Voted for him once and I regret it.
In your mind, what do you think Harris would do? And why hasn't she or Brandon done it now? Same goes for crazie mazie.
When did abortion be a deal breaker for you? If you've voted GOP for a while, their views on it haven't changed.
All the other DNC voters in HI I've spoken to since 2016, not one said abortion is a deal breaker. All said "I vote democrat" and "I would never vote for someone who supports Trump". All other issues aren't deal breakers. This is for ages from 18-seniors and various economic backgrounds.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2024, 02:23:08 PM
I thinking people here are looking for some obscure gotcha's. If the baby can breath and live on its own. It's no longer the mother's choice. If it's 12 weeks old and more or less a bunch of cells it's obviously not "alive". To the point that it has the same rights as the mother.
Breathing on it's own as in thru the cord or outside after birth? Can you also clarify "live on its own".
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 02:37:26 PM
I thinking people here are looking for some obscure gotcha's. If the baby can breath and live on its own. It's no longer the mother's choice. If it's 12 weeks old and more or less a bunch of cells it's obviously not "alive". To the point that it has the same rights as the mother.
is it your professional scientific opinion that a single cell organism is not alive? Just a single cell, not a clump.
Cells in complex organisms grow, multiply and develop into tissues that form bones, brains, livers, lungs, a heart ......
So, is the clump of cells not comprised of living, growing, replicating matter? Is a non-living cell capable of reproduction?
Quote
Every day, every hour, every second one of the most important events in life ishttps://askabiologist.asu.edu/cell-division
going on in your body—cells are dividing. When cells divide, they make new cells.
A single cell divides to make two cells and these two cells then divide to make
four cells, and so on. We call this process "cell division" and "cell reproduction,"
because new cells are formed when old cells divide.
The ability of cells to divide is unique for living organisms.
Sounds like the clump of cells trope needs to be updated to a clump of living cells.
Does an organism have to have a human respiratory system and "breathe" to be considered living?
Do fish breathe? Are fish alive?
Do you believe only animals that need oxygen are alive?
This Is The First Animal Ever Found That
Doesn't Need Oxygen to Survive
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-the-first-animal-ever-found-that-doesnt-need-oxygen-to-survive
The more you think you know, the less likely you are to be right about everything.
Nobody ever knows what they don't know. It's arrogance that leads us to believe otherwise.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 02:41:15 PM
Quote
Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that includehttps://www.britannica.com/science/life
responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.
Although a noun, as with other defined entities, the word life might be better cast as a
verb to reflect its essential status as a process. Life comprises individuals, living beings,
assignable to groups (taxa).
Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells,
Cells that can perform functions like reproduction are, by definition, life.
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 03:53:14 PM
In your mind, what do you think Harris would do? And why hasn't she or Brandon done it now? Same goes for crazie mazie.
When did abortion be a deal breaker for you? If you've voted GOP for a while, their views on it haven't changed.
All the other DNC voters in HI I've spoken to since 2016, not one said abortion is a deal breaker. All said "I vote democrat" and "I would never vote for someone who supports Trump". All other issues aren't deal breakers. This is for ages from 18-seniors and various economic backgrounds.
Previously the courts protected abortion rights. That's not the case now. It's one of many policies that matter to me. I weigh who delivers the most.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 05:35:40 PM
Previously the courts protected abortion rights. That's not the case now. It's one of many policies that matter to me. I weigh who delivers the most.
There is no right to abort a child.
You can dance around it as a woman's right to privacy and to have final say in her own body, but the Supreme Court has stated no such right exists by reversing Roe v. Wade.
Anyone with a brain knew the original decision for Roe was bad law. It tool until the Liberals lost their stranglehold on the Court before the error was corrected.
You can't possible label everything in the world you might WANT to do as a "right."
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 05:42:08 PM
There is no right to abort a child.
You can dance around it as a woman's right to privacy and to have final say in her own body, but the Supreme Court has stated no such right exists by reversing Roe v. Wade.
Anyone with a brain knew the original decision for Roe was bad law. It tool until the Liberals lost their stranglehold on the Court before the error was corrected.
You can't possible label everything in the world you might WANT to do as a "right."
It's a right. Just because it's not fixed into the constitution or federal law doesn't make it any less of a right. It's part of the American ideal. Freedom. Just like when slavery was allowed and women couldn't vote. Those problems were fixed and against the ideal of freedom. Next up is abortion rights and LGBT rights.
I don't understand, the GOP should be on the side of personal rights. Guns, freedom of speech, worship. These are all part of the fundamental American rights.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 05:51:11 PM
It's a right. Just because it's not fixed into the constitution or federal law doesn't make it any less of a right. It's part of the American ideal. Freedom. Just like when slavery was allowed and women couldn't vote. Those problems were fixed and against the ideal of freedom. Next up is abortion rights and LGBT rights.Please show me anything that says aborting a child is a right.
I don't understand, the GOP should be on the side of personal rights. Guns, freedom of speech, worship. These are all part of the fundamental American rights.
The American ideal is to kill our unborn children?
You're a monster.
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 06:00:39 PM
Please show me anything that says aborting a child is a right.
The American ideal is to kill our unborn children?
You're a monster.
The American ideal is to be able to do anything with your own body and mind. Just like how regular citizens have more rights than criminals. Citizens have more rights than illegals. A mother has more rights than a fetus.
Post by: hvybarrels on October 18, 2024, 06:01:35 PM
I thinking people here are looking for some obscure gotcha's. If the baby can breath and live on its own. It's no longer the mother's choice. If it's 12 weeks old and more or less a bunch of cells it's obviously not "alive". To the point that it has the same rights as the mother.
As someone with a functioning central nervous system, wouldn't you be a little upset if someone decided to cut you in to pieces and vacuum them up into a pile of medical waste?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 06:14:35 PM
As someone with a functioning central nervous system, wouldn't you be a little upset if someone decided to cut you in to pieces and vacuum them up into a pile of medical waste?
irrelevant.
Children have no right to life if the mother decides to kill them while the umbilical is still attached.
:crazy:
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 06:17:00 PM
As someone with a functioning central nervous system, wouldn't you be a little upset if someone decided to cut you in to pieces and vacuum them up into a pile of medical waste?
I have a developed brain. A fetus does not.
This is not an all or nothing world. We kill criminals. Non criminals have more rights. We eat animals.
A fully developed human women with a brain has more rights than a fetus.
Post by: macsak on October 18, 2024, 07:11:25 PM
It's a right. Just because it's not fixed into the constitution or federal law doesn't make it any less of a right. It's part of the American ideal. Freedom. Just like when slavery was allowed and women couldn't vote. Those problems were fixed and against the ideal of freedom. Next up is abortion rights and LGBT rights.
I don't understand, the GOP should be on the side of personal rights. Guns, freedom of speech, worship. These are all part of the fundamental American rights.
rights =/= "part of the american ideal"
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 07:15:33 PM
I have a developed brain. A fetus does not.
This is not an all or nothing world. We kill criminals. Non criminals have more rights. We eat animals.
A fully developed human women with a brain has more rights than a fetus.
So, you're admitting a fetus has rights, just not as many as the mother?
Can you list which human rights are protected for a fetus? It seems like a right to life would be at the top of any list.
A fetus has a functioning brain at 8 weeks. It continues to develop before and after birth.
A fully developed human brain doesn't occur until a few years AFTER birth.
Therefore, by your reasoning, we can kill a 2 year old who doesn't have a "fully developed brain" as long as the mother asks for it to be killed?
Post by: Jaco808 on October 18, 2024, 07:44:02 PM
So, you're admitting a fetus has rights, just not as many as the mother?
Can you list which human rights are protected for a fetus? It seems like a right to life would be at the top of any list.
A fetus has a functioning brain at 8 weeks. It continues to develop before and after birth.
A fully developed human brain doesn't occur until a few years AFTER birth.
Therefore, by your reasoning, we can kill a 2 year old who doesn't have a "fully developed brain" as long as the mother asks for it to be killed?
More than nothing less than the mother. Mother's choice till birth. Clearly neither of us will change our minds and we are just going in circles. So you do you. I'm just stating my opinion. It's the majority opinion according to polls.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2024, 08:14:26 PM
Previously the courts protected abortion rights. That's not the case now. It's one of many policies that matter to me. I weigh who delivers the most.You didnt answer my question.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 08:59:17 PM
More than nothing less than the mother. Mother's choice till birth. Clearly neither of us will change our minds and we are just going in circles. So you do you. I'm just stating my opinion. It's the majority opinion according to polls.
Why is the mother allowed to kill her child?
Do you not comprehend the inconsistency of your argument?
You didn't answer WHICH RIGHTS a fetus has. Why is that?
So far, you've not offered any facts, just opinions and beliefs -- none of which you've been able to support.
If the mother has full autonomy over what she's allowed to do with her body, then why can she be charged with child endangerment of an unborn child if she smokes, drinks and/or does drugs against the advice of her doctor?
I guess those "mother's rights" are not as concrete as you want to believe.
Check out the chart below the map here. it shows how almost every state charges pregnant mothers with some form of child abuse or endangerment when they use drugs.
Quote
Since 1973, authorities in at least 45 states have sought to prosecute womenhttps://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state
for exposing their unborn children to drugs. Those efforts continue under a wide
variety of laws even in states where high courts have previously rejected the
prosecution approach.
Seems to fly in the face of "mother's rights > fetus' rights" that you are preaching.
Maybe you should do some research before posting more hogwash on this topic. You're just arguing for a position without any supporting FACTS!!
Post by: hvybarrels on October 18, 2024, 09:37:39 PM
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/12TqMvey6k0TSg/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952puborhs78z3vlm7uidfqygbiifiqhur1yjd2x0vr&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2024, 10:37:30 PM
So if I understand correctly: somehow a brain which did not exist before suddenly appears in the fetus as it passes through the birth canal.
That appears to be the argument of the day.
Tune in tomorrow when we discover that trans-women have the inalienable right to kill a child growing inside their trans-man partner.
Because, you know, the mother has more rights than her unborn baby regardless of biological sex. To deny this violates the rights of trans-women.
Post by: Collector218 on October 19, 2024, 08:48:53 AM
But even after that being said, I’d like to imagine that for the most part once people are faced with their time to make these decision, they’re more often than not to accept the challenge and move on to the next stage of life even if they’re not ready.
I believe that when push comes to shove, most young people just want the choice. And I think at this point the only way forward is some concession to them.
I think if we ever want to resolve this issue both sides will have to make some sort of compromise. I personally think trump had it along the right idea, the federal government should have no right to impose its will on the people. Was it actually the right call? We don’t know. Because right now you got a large population who are screaming that it’s violating body rights. But maybe it’s all Trump derangement syndrome, maybe not. That remains to be determined.
As the federal government they need to find what works best for the system as a whole and not for political affiliation and neither side is completely right in their ultimate visions. Because on the flip side of this argument it’s also true that women are also dying in the southern states for fear of persecution and denial of treatment resulting from pregnancy complications. There are also some conditions in where people just shouldn’t have kids. So again there has to be some compromise.
In turn, I think as citizens it’s our civic duty to not impose our will on our fellow countrymen, but to individually stand for solutions that best fit the system as a whole even if that means somewhere there will be a compromise somewhere. Just live how you believe is pono, and pray for others to do the same. Personally I fall on the pro-life spectrum. I think abortion in most cases is wrong for the soul. I have a daughter that my girl and I probably weren’t ready for. And I’ll pay whatever price any day because to me it’s what I feel is right as a human being, and I love my family.
Don’t call each other stupid or monsters because of disagreement. We are brothers and sisters in this for our freedoms and the 2nd amendment. Debate is a part of the American culture. We shouldn’t divide ourselves because of disagreement. Aloha
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Jaco808 on October 19, 2024, 11:24:10 AM
Why is the mother allowed to kill her child?
Do you not comprehend the inconsistency of your argument?
You didn't answer WHICH RIGHTS a fetus has. Why is that?
So far, you've not offered any facts, just opinions and beliefs -- none of which you've been able to support.
If the mother has full autonomy over what she's allowed to do with her body, then why can she be charged with child endangerment of an unborn child if she smokes, drinks and/or does drugs against the advice of her doctor?
I guess those "mother's rights" are not as concrete as you want to believe.
Check out the chart below the map here. it shows how almost every state charges pregnant mothers with some form of child abuse or endangerment when they use drugs.
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state
Seems to fly in the face of "mother's rights > fetus' rights" that you are preaching.
Maybe you should do some research before posting more hogwash on this topic. You're just arguing for a position without any supporting FACTS!!
You are assuming my opinion. I don't think mother's should be charged with endangerment. The states are wrong on that.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 19, 2024, 11:59:53 AM
You are assuming my opinion. I don't think mother's should be charged with endangerment. The states are wrong on that.
I don't have to assume anything. You already told us what you believe.
i'm just telling you you're wrong, and all you can do is reply with more hyperbole.
Your reply above proves it. Pure unsupported, subjective opinion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 19, 2024, 12:20:01 PM
...
I think if we ever want to resolve this issue both sides will have to make some sort of compromise. I personally think trump had it along the right idea, the federal government should have no right to impose its will on the people. Was it actually the right call? We don’t know. Because right now you got a large population who are screaming that it’s violating body rights. But maybe it’s all Trump derangement syndrome, maybe not. That remains to be determined.
As the federal government they need to find what works best for the system as a whole and not for political affiliation and neither side is completely right in their ultimate visions. Because on the flip side of this argument it’s also true that women are also dying in the southern states for fear of persecution and denial of treatment resulting from pregnancy complications. There are also some conditions in where people just shouldn’t have kids. So again there has to be some compromise.
......
Don’t call each other stupid or monsters because of disagreement. We are brothers and sisters in this for our freedoms and the 2nd amendment. Debate is a part of the American culture. We shouldn’t divide ourselves because of disagreement. Aloha
First, show me where the right to life deserves a "compromise".
Civil society has a duty to protect the weakest among us from those who seek to destroy them.
If we were to compromise when a teen is being held up, the law would say you have to hand over your wallet and jewelry to the robber, and no charges would be filed if the robber never harmed you. You walked away poorer but otherwise unharmed, and the robber got what he wanted without being shot while threatening the victim with a knife or gun.
Compromise.
Are we supposed to let the mother kill her unborn child without asking if the decision was reasonable in the situation? Or do we give the pro-abortion camp total autonomy to make that decision without any oversight or verification?
There is no one in society more in need of protection than an unborn child. Innocent, vulnerable and totally dependent on the mother -- before AND after birth.
the question is whether the mother has a duty to protect her own child, not whether the government can force her to carry a child she doesn't want to term. If the duty exists, then the law is simply a mechanism to ensure the child is protected in spite of the mother's actions.
We don't outlaw murder because the state is forcing us to let others live. We outlaw it because society agrees murder is inherently wrong, and society has a duty to protect itself from those who inflict violence upon others.
There is no compromise when the outcome is the irreversible destruction of an unborn child except when there is severe risk to the mother's existence.
I don't see how you can talk about comrpromise when the child doesn't get a vote.
As for using labels, I think calling lt like we see it is warranted. This topic is not a clean, sanitary debate. It's about killing children. Anyone who thinks it's okay to kill a child in utero when the child cold have been delivered instead is a monster.
And i'm not calling the person stupid, just his arguments -- because they are.
Quote
That's stupid....
You may want to rethink your definitions. The ones you are using are stupid.
I'd be willing to apologize if you can show where someone called any forum member "stupid." I don't think I did.
Maybe EEF is the exception, but he started it! :geekdanc: :shaka: