Landslide for Trump

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 7/13/2024 at 3:22 PM, SharkTanked said:

I think 22 is a reasonable line in the sand. Would be even better to it be just set as the "standard of viability" which gets determined by some coalition of AMA, HHS, etc. But the current "big brains bad" GOP and SCOTUS would never go for such a thing.

It's just what makes sense.  Once the fetus is potentially viable, the state should have a say.  If it is not viable without the mothers body, it should be her choice.

I wouldn't want to raise a daughter in Idaho right now.  If I had one I would move out of the state my family has called home since 1855.

[Spaztecs]

On 7/13/2024 at 3:18 PM, Rebelcuff said:

Trump becoming a dictator is just a scare tactic by the far left.

You're either ignorant or rooting for it.

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/12/2024 at 2:47 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

If they moved it to 20 weeks, the now standard of viability, they would win going away.

The viability standard just makes the most sense

20 weeks is not viable.

What makes the most sense is calling women people in the eyes of the law. But that ship has sailed. 

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/13/2024 at 2:05 PM, SharkTanked said:

I had always thought 24 weeks was the standard for viability. Has that changed?

 

On 7/13/2024 at 2:19 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Was 24 originally when Roe became law.  I thought it was 20 now but I looked it up and it's 22-3

viability varies greatly on a case by case basis. But 24 is still the standard in almost all hospitals. If something happens early they will pump you full of steroids and try as hard as they can to get you to 24 weeks. Babies occasionally are born and live before that, but 24 is generally the threshold where the outcomes are likely to be good enough to where they shoot for that number specifically. 

Ironically, the hospitals where you have a better chance at a good outcome earlier in the term are hospitals in places where they are allowed to practice real, proper and thorough OBGYN because the state does not get between a woman, her doctor and her body. Funny how that works .

[SharkTanked]

On 7/15/2024 at 9:44 PM, smltwnrckr said:

 

viability varies greatly on a case by case basis. But 24 is still the standard in almost all hospitals. If something happens early they will pump you full of steroids and try as hard as they can to get you to 24 weeks. Babies occasionally are born and live before that, but 24 is generally the threshold where the outcomes are likely to be good enough to where they shoot for that number specifically. 

Ironically, the hospitals where you have a better chance at a good outcome earlier in the term are hospitals in places where they are allowed to practice real, proper and thorough OBGYN because the state does not get between a woman, her doctor and her body. Funny how that works .

That's kinda what I thought. Technology is technology and pharmacology is pharmacology... but human biology, at that extremely delicate age... tends to get in the way of those advancements.

Maybe we will just evolve to hatch our eggs instead?

My kid is turning 19 in a few months. The threshold of viability has not appreciably changed in all that time.

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/15/2024 at 10:11 PM, SharkTanked said:

That's kinda what I thought. Technology is technology and pharmacology is pharmacology... but human biology, at that extremely delicate age... tends to get in the way of those advancements.

Maybe we will just evolve to hatch our eggs instead?

My kid is turning 19 in a few months. The threshold of viability has not appreciably changed in all that time.

After 20, the percentages of good outcomes creep up from around 0 to I think at 26 or 27 weeks where it's close to 100 or at least very high.

Technology can increase those numbers a bit bit by making a couple more miracles happen. But as far as I've seen 24 is still the moment when those numbers flip from under 50 percent to over 50 percent.

[Soupslam]

On 7/13/2024 at 3:33 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's just what makes sense.  Once the fetus is potentially viable, the state should have a say.  If it is not viable without the mothers body, it should be her choice.

I wouldn't want to raise a daughter in Idaho right now.  If I had one I would move out of the state my family has called home since 1855.

Or you do what we did, put her on birth control at 14. Yeah I know it’s not 100% guaranteed, but it worked for her and she became sexually active at 16. She went off it when she got married and now we have two grandsons. 

OTOH I have a niece that had three abortions in her college years because she didn’t like how birth control pills made her feel.

Unfortunately the vast majority of abortions are for convenience because neither the guy or girl take precautions. 

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/16/2024 at 9:09 AM, Soupslam said:

Or you do what we did, put her on birth control at 14. Yeah I know it’s not 100% guaranteed, but it worked for her and she became sexually active at 16. She went off it when she got married and now we have two grandsons. 

OTOH I have a niece that had three abortions in her college years because she didn’t like how birth control pills made her feel.

Unfortunately the vast majority of abortions are for convenience because neither the guy or girl take precautions. 

LOL, your nutty response has nothing to do with viability. But it sure does say a lot. 

[modestobulldog]

On 7/12/2024 at 1:14 AM, Nevada Convert said:

I agree. Trump could have smooth sailing to get a victory with just a tad bit of ‘smarts’ and discipline required, but it’s just impossible for him to pull off. Trump will fuck things up for himself with his big mouth, ego and stupidity. It’s who he is…it’s in his DNA. Book it. 

A month ago, I would have agreed with you, he has been uncharacteristically quiet while Biden was imploding post debate, post shooting he has turned into one badass.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 7/15/2024 at 10:44 PM, smltwnrckr said:

 

viability varies greatly on a case by case basis. But 24 is still the standard in almost all hospitals. If something happens early they will pump you full of steroids and try as hard as they can to get you to 24 weeks. Babies occasionally are born and live before that, but 24 is generally the threshold where the outcomes are likely to be good enough to where they shoot for that number specifically. 

Ironically, the hospitals where you have a better chance at a good outcome earlier in the term are hospitals in places where they are allowed to practice real, proper and thorough OBGYN because the state does not get between a woman, her doctor and her body. Funny how that works .

The results in Boise have been horrific.  St Alphonsus alone is flying 2-3 women out of state a week.  OBGYN care has been decimated.

Again, If I had a daughter I would move out state.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 7/16/2024 at 10:09 AM, Soupslam said:

Or you do what we did, put her on birth control at 14. Yeah I know it’s not 100% guaranteed, but it worked for her and she became sexually active at 16. She went off it when she got married and now we have two grandsons. 

OTOH I have a niece that had three abortions in her college years because she didn’t like how birth control pills made her feel.

Unfortunately the vast majority of abortions are for convenience because neither the guy or girl take precautions. 

Except now in Idaho a woman would need her parents consent to do so.  In fact, even getting an STD screening now requires parental notification.

Doctors are feeling our state man.  It's making even the most well planned out and Christianist pregnancy ever exponentially more dangerous.

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:10 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Except now in Idaho a woman would need her parents consent to do so.  In fact, even getting an STD screening now requires parental notification.

Doctors are feeling our state man.  It's making even the most well planned out and Christianist pregnancy ever exponentially more dangerous.

Your thoughts about Californians ruining your state are coming true. All these retired conservative dudes from California keep moving out there and supporting measures that hurt women fueled by their own belief that they did right by their daughters. But their daughters' therapy transcripts would probably suggest otherwise. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 7/16/2024 at 1:15 PM, smltwnrckr said:

Your thoughts about Californians ruining your state are coming true. All these retired conservative dudes from California keep moving out there and supporting measures that hurt women fueled by their own belief that they did right by their daughters. But their daughters' therapy transcripts would probably suggest otherwise. 

And they dump money into our most radical candidates upon moving here.

Idaho becoming the refuge state for ultra conservatives from the Pacific is heartbreaking.  Feeds a cycle of shit.

The most recent shit of all sexual care needing parental acknowledgement is insane.  OBGYNs are moving to Portland, Eugene, Spokane, Seattle, SLC etc...but even going there to see them could be a felony.

Our doctors are scared and frustrated.  We are mandating by threat of the state they abandon their oath.

 

[Soupslam]

On 7/16/2024 at 11:40 AM, smltwnrckr said:

LOL, your nutty response has nothing to do with viability. But it sure does say a lot. 

Nutty? How so? And how does it say a lot? 

[aztech]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:15 PM, smltwnrckr said:

Your thoughts about Californians ruining your state are coming true. All these retired conservative dudes from California keep moving out there and supporting measures that hurt women fueled by their own belief that they did right by their daughters. But their daughters' therapy transcripts would probably suggest otherwise. 

Ya know, the thought I had of the people I knew who moved to Idaho was, it figures.  I'll leave it at that. 

[406bleedsblue]

On 7/16/2024 at 11:40 AM, smltwnrckr said:

LOL, your nutty response has nothing to do with viability. But it sure does say a lot. 

It says they were responsible parents, good for them.

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:43 PM, Soupslam said:

Nutty? How so? And how does it say a lot? 

Responding to the viability question and the general threat that anti-abortion laws are to the health of women and babies with stories of men's ability and inability to control teenage female sexuality offers very good insight into the discourse surrounding the issue. 

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/16/2024 at 1:29 PM, 406bleedsblue said:

It says they were responsible parents, good for them.

Responsible or irresponsible parenting has little to do with most abortions, since adult women who are already mothers get most of them.  

[406bleedsblue]

On 7/16/2024 at 3:09 PM, smltwnrckr said:

Responsible or irresponsible parenting has little to do with most abortions, since adult women who are already mothers get most of them.  

That's right, being a responsible parent has little to do with being a good parent. 

[smltwnrckr]

On 7/16/2024 at 5:10 PM, 406bleedsblue said:

That's right, being a responsible parent has little to do with being a good parent. 

I mean, you hit the nail on the head. Abortion restrictions are about punishing whores.