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

a reply to: RadioRobert

The prerequisite for being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America and enjoy the protections of its constitution, is being a person who has been "born".

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

A fertilized egg, an embryo nor a fetus are not yet "born".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So we can murder visiting noncitizens and illegal aliens now? Citizenship is not the test of protection under the law. Even property enjoys protection under our laws.

Also, you don't seem to know what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means in the sentence. It is another requirement of ( "AND under"), not the benefit of, citizenship...

a reply to: RadioRobert

So we can murder visiting noncitizens and illegal aliens now?

Not if they are born, and within the jurisdiction of the USA.

Citizenship is not the test of protection under the law.

We're not talking about citizenship, we're talking about US jurisdiction and the qualifications for constitutional protection, and being a "born" person, regardless of the location of birth, is required. This is the fundamental problem with fetal personhood laws, and why they don't mesh with the 14th Amendment.

This is why the Republican Nation Platform, calls for a constitutional amendment granting personhood to the unborn, crom the moment of conceptions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it said, "or subject" as you are trying to make it read, then everyone regardless of immigration status, excepting foreign invaders, hostile rebellions, and those with diplomatic immunity would be citizens.

And again, it sets a requirement for citizenship; it says nothing about gaining protection of US laws or Constitutional protection being dependent on naturalization or being born in the US.

What exactly does the citizenship requirement have to do with personhood? You keep citing the requirement for citizenship (born here OR naturalized AND subject to our laws) and abusing the language to make it about personhood or a requirement for protection under our law. Has nothing to do with the text you are citing.

The push for recognition of personhood in utero has nothing to do with the 14th amendments citizenship requirements.

Earlier in another thread you admitted a viable fetus is a sovereign being (ie has personhood), but quickly retreated when you realized what it meant for your dishonest arguments. Twisting the 14th amendment backwards to try to establish only born people are subject to the laws of the United States or entitled to the protection of those laws is equally bizarre.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Everyone who enters US borders, and/or US territories, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, provided they're born, or are otherwise acknowledged by the US Constitution as "persons", i.e. corporations.

If an undocumented/illegal alien, who happens to be pregnant, is residing within US borders, she is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the US Constitution. Her fetus is not. Her born child will be.

ETA

Earlier in another thread you admitted a viable fetus is a sovereign being (ie has personhood), but quickly retreated when you realized what it meant for your dishonest arguments. Twisting the 14th amendment backwards to try to establish only born people are subject to the laws of the United States or entitled to the protection of those laws is equally bizarre.

Nope.
SCOTUS determined that the woman's personhood overrules the state's interest in protecting potential life until the fetus achieves viability. At that point, the states' right to protect potential life overrules the woman's right to terminate that potential life on demand.

In Roe V Wade, SCOTUS ruled on states' rights, not fetal rights.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
My kid was born late December. I remember the nurses with their big smiles saying he came just in time for us to claim him for the whole
year on taxes.

Well well well, now let's look at Alabama. If they are going to change when a person, is a person, shouldn't parents get to claim them while in utero?

Can't have it both ways right?

There are some countries that declare you 1 year old when you are born. Maybe that is the route Alabama is going.

If it's legal for you to abort it (the child), then it should be illegal for you to claim it (the child) on taxes for the year.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, people here are subject to the laws of the US with few exceptions. That has nothing to do with you twisting the wording of the citizenship requirements in the 14th amendment... Nor does it preclude children in utero from being recognized as persons.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'm sorry to be contrary, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Here's what Justice Neil Gorsuch said at his confirmation hearing, referring to a book that he wrote:

“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.
“That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, Senator, yes,” Gorsuch answered firmly.

thehill.com...


I posted this earlier in this thread as proof of precedent:

A fetus is not a person under New York law or under the State and Federal Constitutions. (United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397; Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309; Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741; Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners

……….

A fetus is not a "person" pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which provide that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. (People v. Fein, 292 N. Y. 10; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Matter of Peabody, 5 N Y 2d 541; People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 397 U.S. 915; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479

……...

. Whether a fetus is a "human being" and a "person" to be afforded a constitutional protection is a question of law and not fact, and no court, as a matter of law, has declared the fetus a person under the Constitution. (Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217; United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62

………….

The occasions of State intervention extending benefit or protection to the fetus provide no support for the contention that the fetus has any constitutional rights. (People v. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62; Evans v. People, 49 N. Y. 86; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535; Matter of Sampson, 29 N Y 2d 900; Application of President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 331 F. 2d 1000, 377 U.S. 978; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542

msu.edu...

I find it ironic that conservative's hate government influence and intrusion into their private lives, yet if it concerns a woman making a choice about her own body...they are totally ok with state and federal regulations over riding a supreme court ruling. hypocrites; don't tell me how much you love and respect the constitution ever again.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is nothing in the section of the 14th amendment that you keep quoting that has to do with personhood or protection under the law. It has to do only with citizenship requirements which is completely a different topic.

Corporations are not born or citizens, yet are afforded legal protections and rights. Bald Eagle eggs are not humans, born, nor citizens, yet they are afforded legal protections. Big horn sheep in utero are not humans, nor citizens, yet they are afforded protection under our laws.

I am aware of the Courts current stance on personhood of children in utero. You neglect to mention that viable fetuses are in fact subject to state protections under current interpretation of the law, though currently not legally considered people. I wonder why you are selectively structuring your inane argument.

a reply to: olaru12

 concerns a woman making a choice about her own body

But my concern is not for choices over her body.

The child has it's own DNA, body, brain, brainwaves, heartbeat, bloodtype, etc. In fact the placenta exists to keep the bodies entirely separate. Without the placenta facilitating interaction between both distinct beings, they are both susceptible to a variety of different ailments including the fetus's own immune system attacking his (or her) mother and vice versa.

So it's really not a matter of solely the woman's body at issue despite all attempts to frame it that way.

a reply to: olaru12

You're failing to realize that almost everyone who is pro-life is pro-life because they believe that a human being is killed/murdered in violation of their own rights by each abortion. This isn't a case of "OMG, we wanna eff over somebody's rights, go get 'em gubment!" It is a very divisive situation in which one side sees it purely as involving a woman and a decision which only effects her life and her rights while the other side sees it as also involving the life and rights of a second human being who is not being granted any right of choice.

I find it ironic that liberals bend over backwards forcing everyone else to try to save people from their own personal decisions and mistakes while leaving the most innocent and untarnished lives who haven't even had a chance to succeed or err in their lives out to twist.

BS...


If it were men getting pregnant, abortions would be available at Starbucks.

a reply to: RadioRobert

SCOTUS has ruled that a fetus has no constitutional right to life. Human fetuses aren't an endangered species, like the American Bald Eagle.

" The concept that a corporation is an artificial person is a useful "legal fiction." It is a fiction because corporations obviously are not biological entities. However, the law finds it necessary to provide corporations with certain rights and responsibilities commonly held by people.

smallbusiness.chron.com...

Corporations are "fictional" legal entities, but are not subject to all the rights afforded citizens, like voting. Corporations can't be imprisoned. Corporations can't run for office or serve in the military.

You neglect to mention that viable fetuses are in fact subject to state protections under current interpretation of the law, though currently not legally considered people.

I believe I said that SCOTUS determined that "states' rights" allow states to intervene on behalf of a fetus, once the fetus achieves viability.

I can add, States have the right to regulate dangerous substances that may cause birth defects, or worse, as a matter of public health, so that you don't accuse me neglect again.

At any rate, as far as I see it, the 14th Amendment prevents the success of these fetal personhood laws.

a reply to: olaru12

...because we have a history of not prosecuting murders committed by males in the US?
Not sure why you're playing the sexism card here, but you appear to be spitballing and flinging it in desperation.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

SCOTUS has ruled that a fetus has no constitutional right to life. Human fetuses aren't an endangered species, like the American Bald Eagle.

The SCOTUS also once ruled in the Dred Scott case that blacks weren't people or citizens and weren't entitled to any Constitutional Rights as such. 9 years later, the 14th Amendment changed the fabric of the nation... The ruling in Dred Scott was a substantive due process ruling in favor of slave owners, same as Roe v Wade was a substantive due process ruling in favor of women who wanted abortions and the medical community that profited greatly from the practice. The current make-up of the court sees 4 originalists (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas) and one "sometimes" originalist in Roberts. Originalists aren't at all fond of substantive due process rulings... so it is entirely possible that the end result here will be the court retreating from the Dred Scott like ruling in Roe v Wade and forcing Congress to either amend the Constitution to include abortion as a Right or acknowledge the fact that the unborn are people and have their own Rights.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: olaru12

...because we have a history of not prosecuting murders committed by males in the US?
Not sure why you're playing the sexism card here, but you appear to be spitballing and flinging it in desperation.

No worries, It's just something my lady told me. I thought you might enjoy a little levity.

I don't see why you should be able to claim a fetus on your taxes at all. How would you justify the money spent on supporting the fetus? The fetus is not using any clothes or other resources directly, as it is not born yet. The mother may need to purchase new clothes for herself or purchase more food to eat for herself. You could argue the food is supporting both the mother and the fetus, but there is no reasonable way to determine the percentage of "food" that is going support the life of the fetus vs the life of the mother. Any clothes or other baby supplies are not yet being used by the fetus. I don't see how this is a valid question at all.

a reply to: olaru12

People are dying, I find that levity poorly timed and misplaced.

a reply to: dumpaling

Elimination of income taxation would solve this and many more questions/problems in the US...