Should you be able to claim an Alabama fetus on your taxes

a reply to: RadioRobert

No but you need the social security number in order to add a fetus as a dependent or apply for govt financial aide and of a fetus is a person then they should be able to apply.

The real question is:

Does a fetus have the right to choose it's own gender in the womb, and if contested by biological constants, can it then sue the mother for not being a more diverse vessel?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JAGStorm

Only if the fetus gets a Social Security number.

Or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. You are absolutely correct, nobody can be claimed as a dependent on someone's taxes unless they have a SS# or a federal ITIN.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Sookiechacha

This is the great legal mind he is taking about.
www.thoughtco.com...

Hey what do ya know. I figured out how to copy and paste links on my cell phone!!!

Seems a lot of his ideas are no longer present in our legal system.

Oh boy!

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing

LOL

Big ole legal can o worms just tipped over. The lawyers are doing a happy dance In Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and now Louisiana.

If a fertilized egg is now a person, they are afforded inalienable rights under the law.

I wonder if now a pregnant woman drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes will be criminalized because it harms the fetus,

or if speeding in a automobile can be deemed child endangerment?

originally posted by: olaru12
I wonder if now a pregnant woman drinking and smoking cigarettes will be criminalized because it harms the fetus,
or if speeding in a automobile can be deemed child endangerment?

And the reverse of that, if a pregnant woman does something crazy and illegal, can she blame it on the fetus and the hormonal changes it creates so that the fetus will be liable when it is born? Will it have to do time in baby prison?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: olaru12
I wonder if now a pregnant woman drinking and smoking cigarettes will be criminalized because it harms the fetus,
or if speeding in a automobile can be deemed child endangerment?

And the reverse of that, if a pregnant woman does something crazy and illegal, can she blame it on the fetus and the hormonal changes it creates so that the fetus will be liable when it is born? Will it have to do time in baby prison?

and if a woman is required for maintenance and well being of the fetus, will there be camps for pregnant women where they can be monitored until they deliver the infant. Then will the STATE assume responsibility for the child's welfare?

originally posted by: olaru12
I wonder if now a pregnant woman drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes will be criminalized because it harms the fetus,

or if speeding in a automobile can be deemed child endangerment?

www.alcohol.org...

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), data collected in 2016 indicates that the following states have legal provisions that may define alcohol use by a pregnant woman as a form of child abuse:

Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, North Dakota, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah. Virginia, Wisconsin.
In these states, women who have used alcohol while pregnant may face legal charges of child abuse, depending on the circumstances surrounding the case, so there is most likely some legal justification for individuals who refuse to serve pregnant women alcohol in these states. The range of penalties, including fines and jail time, will vary from case to case and state to state.

projects.propublica.org...

Since 1973, authorities in at least 45 states have sought to prosecute women 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.

Eighteen states have laws that say drug use during pregnancy is child abuse.

So, to answer your question, "Yes, and these new abortion laws had nothing to do with it."

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: olaru12
I wonder if now a pregnant woman drinking and smoking cigarettes will be criminalized because it harms the fetus,
or if speeding in a automobile can be deemed child endangerment?

And the reverse of that, if a pregnant woman does something crazy and illegal, can she blame it on the fetus and the hormonal changes it creates so that the fetus will be liable when it is born? Will it have to do time in baby prison?

If the baby's "mother" is that goddamned disgusting and sick in the head, then the baby already did it's hard time in the slam prior to birth.

originally posted by: olaru12
Big ole legal can o worms just tipped over. The lawyers are doing a happy dance In Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and now Louisiana.

If a fertilized egg is now a person, they are afforded inalienable rights under the law.

I wonder if now a pregnant woman drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes will be criminalized because it harms the fetus,

or if speeding in a automobile can be deemed child endangerment?

I know we don't agree on everything, but its nice to see someone really get what i'm trying to say.

originally posted by: olaru12
Then will the STATE assume responsibility for the child's welfare?

All 50 already do that. www.cbpp.org... and SNAP is but one available resource to point at as an example of the state taking responsibility for the pre-adult children of others who refuse such responsibilities.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Another question...

If a woman gets pregnant in another country or state and moves to the new Theocratic States of America, will the State take control of the woman's pregnancy and welfare of the fetus or will that be the responsibility of the state where the conception took place.

What jurisdiction will have control? And will the State government create state run orphanages, like they used to do with Native Americans.

kansaspress.ku.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: olaru12

I have no idea on the first question...
As to the second question, we should resume government orphanages and, taking it further, we should also go back to having indigent poor farms and work farms to address the current opiod and homelessness epidemic sweeping the country. It seems vagrancy was less of a major problem and abortion less common when those facilities were in use in this nation.

Can a fetus legally own a firearm? If it can it would seem they autamtically have a concealed carry situation as well which plays in their favor when a good fetus with a gun needs to stop a bad doctor with a vacuum.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JAGStorm

Exactly. As I brought up in another thread, this means that any child conceived on US soil is a US citizen.

Does that mean that any illegal immigrant that conceives on US soil can't be deported since it would also require reporting a legal US citizen?

Lol, people have a problem with "anchor babies," they'll really have a problem with "anchor fetuses."

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: olaru12

I have no idea on the first question...
As to the second question, we should resume government orphanages and, taking it further, we should also go back to having indigent poor farms and work farms to address the current opiod and homelessness epidemic sweeping the country. It seems vagrancy was less of a major problem and abortion less common when those facilities were in use in this nation.

Poor / work farms were never a good solution to a debt problem because while the poor people were working they just continued to not be able to provide for themselves, and they kept sliding further into debt. These days, imagine the insurance liability problems it would cause. It was never a good solution, and it's even worse now.

As for abortions. There were not necessarily fewer because there were fewer of them officially counted, with women having to rely on illegal and unsafe methods. Also, it was a different culture. Men were often the sole providers, and women were relegated to staying at home and having / raising kids. That's great in a society that pays workers enough so that one person could support an entire family. But after WWII, when corporate America found out that they could make even more money if you forced women into the workplace, they went all in. If you want to turn back that clock, you're going to have a big fight on your hands from employers big and small. Times change.

"Vagrancy?" That's just another way of saying, "poor people who I can see." Put them in prison, because out of sight, out of mind, right? Besides, putting them in prisons actually costs a lot more than just giving them a clean, safe place to live.

So rather than look back into the past at institutions and policies that didn't work all that well in the first place and certainly won't work now, let's try to use our incredible wealth and technology to try something different. Easily available and more effective contraception, for instance. Affordable housing to help the dire poor get their act together, reduce their debt and become functioning members of society. Better and more affordable online education. You know, dumb stuff like that.

And let's stop attaching moral judgments to these things. It's not bad or lazy people doing evil things. It's primarily a matter of economics -- and it's driven by big business. Women have abortions primarily because it is their most efficient and economically viable option.

a reply to: loam

The tax analogy is a terrible one. Being able to claim someone on your taxes is based upon dependency and an age range...not person-hood alone. Otherwise, all of those thirty and forty somethings living in their parent's basement might confer an actual benefit to the parents. Nice try.

Really? are you sure about the age range? I know there is a question on the tax forms that asks " can anybody else claim you as a dependent"

Your " nice try" comment sounds a bit condescending... So can you back up your Superior knowledge of tax laws that says there is an age limit to be considered a dependent?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If a fetus is not a person how in the world can you be convicted of murdering a person by killing one?

Edit

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It seems vagrancy was less of a major problem and abortion less common when those facilities were in use in this nation.

Did you get those facts from fox news? You also want nation wide right to work.... Just my opinion, but your views are sooo out there.