At what point do you think the fetus becomes a baby? (1 Viewer)

[Frank Apisa]

I can't claim my 18 year old son...does that make him not human?

No it doesn't. Obviously there is a tax code reason why you CANNOT claim that son.

But if you are so sure a fetus is a whole living human being, why not use it as a dependent on your income tax?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Look if you don't understand the difference between personhood and human you're not worth my time. There have been plenty of humans in history that weren't considered persons or full persons. Declaring certain humans non-persons is hardly new.

Secondly, a pregnant women declares her child on her taxes no matter when it is born. I can give birth on DEC. 31 st and claim the child for the entire year so it's like I'm claiming the time spent in utero, not that it matters.

Wow, that was some twisted reasoning.

And if the birth occured January 1st of the following year, would you be able to claim it for the previous year??? If not, why not?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Whatever you say, Pops!:roll:

I love you when you say like that!

 

[Felicity]

No it doesn't. Obviously there is a tax code reason why you CANNOT claim that son.

But if you are so sure a fetus is a whole living human being, why not use it as a dependent on your income tax?

As talloulou very astutely pointed out (good one :applaud)--a child carried in utero in the year 2007, born on Dec. 31, ...I guess that kid WAS legally a tax deduction while yet unborn, eh?

 

[talloulou]

Wow, that was some twisted reasoning.

And if the birth occured January 1st of the following year, would you be able to claim it for the previous year??? If not, why not?

For whatever reason the legislation is written that a child is claimed for the entire year in which it was born regardless of when during that year it was born.

As far as tax codes go it makes sense. Allowing women to claim a child while she is pregnant prior to birth would come with many pitfalls including women lying and saying they're pregnant when they're not with no real way to prove that they lost a baby, aborted, or just were never pregnant in the first place. But the fact remains, no matter when a child is born, you claim the child for the entire year of that year and in most cases part of that year was spent in utero.

 

[Frank Apisa]

For whatever reason the legislation is written that a child is claimed for the entire year in which it was born regardless of when during that year it was born.

As far as tax codes go it makes sense. Allowing women to claim a child while she is pregnant prior to birth would come with many pitfalls including women lying and saying they're pregnant when they're not with no real way to prove that they lost a baby, aborted, or just were never pregnant in the first place. But the fact remains, no matter when a child is born, you claim the child for the entire year of that year and in most cases part of that year was spent in utero.

Is that a long way of saying that the IRS does not consider a fetus to be a living human being?

 

[jallman]

Is that a long way of saying that the IRS does not consider a fetus to be a living human being?

No, the IRS doesn't concern itself with living or dead as it can still tax the estate of a dead man.

The IRS does not consider the fetus to be a person, however.

 

[talloulou]

Is that a long way of saying that the IRS does not consider a fetus to be a living human being?

The IRS is only concerned with giving you credit for the entire year in which a child is born.

The unborn victims of violence act though clearly shows that the government is quite capable of viewing and defining the unborn as:

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

 

[Frank Apisa]

For whatever reason the legislation is written that a child is claimed for the entire year in which it was born regardless of when during that year it was born.

As far as tax codes go it makes sense. Allowing women to claim a child while she is pregnant prior to birth would come with many pitfalls including women lying and saying they're pregnant when they're not with no real way to prove that they lost a baby, aborted, or just were never pregnant in the first place. But the fact remains, no matter when a child is born, you claim the child for the entire year of that year and in most cases part of that year was spent in utero.

But Teco is correct, we gotta move on. So—without regard to anything else:

If a woman is pregnant and decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy occurring in her own body—she should be able to terminate it—legally and as safely as possible, which means without laws against it and with access to as safe a medical procedure as possible.

And neither you, nor Felicity, nor the government should have ANYTHING to say about it.

If there is a god who will punish the woman for this deed, that is between the god and the woman.

Butt out!

 

[jallman]

But Teco is correct, we gotta move on. So—without regard to anything else:

If a woman is pregnant and decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy occurring in her own body—she should be able to terminate it—legally and as safely as possible, which means without laws against it and with access to as safe a medical procedure as possible.

And neither you, nor Felicity, nor the government should have ANYTHING to say about it.

If there is a god who will punish the woman for this deed, that is between the god and the woman.

Butt out!

No. The government has a vested interest in preserving the right to life of every one of it's citizens. The womb of a woman is not some no-man's-land that falls outside of the US government's jurisdiction. There is a point during the pregnancy where you are no longer dealing with tissue and potential and you are dealing with an actual person. At that point, the woman's rights cannot override the child's and have us still call ourselves a society of equality.

 

[tecoyah]

There is that little issue of calling a pregnant woman a "host"...What say you concerning that? Is she a host to a guest? And if so, is that guest a human?

I suppose she can be called a host, I prefer the term Pregnant Woman....but hey whatever floats a boat. She is indeed carrying a human Zygote, fetus collection of cells...whatever, but they are the same species, so Parasite is a bit of a stretch I think, and carries a negative connotation I just don't like.

 

[talloulou]

But Teco is correct, we gotta move on. So—without regard to anything else:

If a woman is pregnant and decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy occurring in her own body—she should be able to terminate it—legally and as safely as possible,

Why?

And if the fetus is a living human member of the species Homo Sapiens why shouldn't we fight for his/her rights to personhood and equal rights just as we have historically for women and African Americans?

And neither you, nor Felicity, nor the government should have ANYTHING to say about it.

Why not? Should people have just shut up about crap laws that claimed blacks weren't persons, or women?

If there is a god who will punish the woman for this deed, that is between the god and the woman.

Butt out!

So if the government declares African Americans non-persons or women non-persons other persons who believe that to be wrong-headed should just wait on God to sort out the mess? :roll:

 

[jallman]

I suppose she can be called a host, I prefer the term Pregnant Woman....but hey whatever floats a boat. She is indeed carrying a human Zygote, fetus collection of cells...whatever, but they are the same species, so Parasite is a bit of a stretch I think, and carries a negative connotation I just don't like.

I wish more pro-choicers would step up and be honest with the rhetoric like you just did. :2wave:

 

[Frank Apisa]

If a woman is pregnant and decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy occurring in her own body—she should be able to terminate it—legally and as safely as possible, which means without laws against it and with access to as safe a medical procedure as possible.

And neither you, nor Felicity, nor the government should have ANYTHING to say about it.

If there is a god who will punish the woman for this deed, that is between the god and the woman.

 

[talloulou]

If a woman is pregnant and decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy occurring in her own body—she should be able to terminate it—legally and as safely as possible, which means without laws against it and with access to as safe a medical procedure as possible.

And neither you, nor Felicity, nor the government should have ANYTHING to say about it.

If there is a god who will punish the woman for this deed, that is between the god and the woman.

Geez pops! How's that any different from what you said a couple of posts ago? Maybe geriatrics should be considered non-persons given their feeble minds.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Geez pops! How's that any different from what you said a couple of posts ago? Maybe geriatrics should be considered non-persons given their feeble minds.

You really turn me on when you call me pops!


If a woman is pregnant and decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy occurring in her own body—she should be able to terminate it—legally and as safely as possible, which means without laws against it and with access to as safe a medical procedure as possible.

And neither you, nor Felicity, nor the government should have ANYTHING to say about it.

If there is a god who will punish the woman for this deed, that is between the god and the woman.

 

[talloulou]

Good Lord, can you say it again pops. Just one more time. Old people are funny and I get a kick out of listening to them repeat themselves.

 

[Felicity]

She is indeed carrying a human Zygote, fetus collection of cells...whatever,

A human BEING.

but they are the same species, so Parasite is a bit of a stretch I think, and carries a negative connotation I just don't like.

Agreed--and that means she can only be a "host" in the sense that she is "entertains a guest."

 

[tecoyah]

A human BEING.

I guess this is the term in contention for many...and simply stating it does not solve the disagreement.



Agreed--and that means she can only be a "host" in the sense that she is "entertains a guest."

Works for me, but I still prefer pregnant woman...heh

 

[Felicity]

Good Lord, can you say it again pops. Just one more time. Old people are funny and I get a kick out of listening to them repeat themselves.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057549303-post102.html

It's ironic that this ""This guy is saying stuff we don't wanna hear, so we're gonna put our fingers in our ears and hold our breath 'til we turn blue!" is exactly what is being displayed by the repeating behaviors of the author of that line.:rofl

 

[Felicity]

I guess this is the term in contention for many...and simply stating it does not solve the disagreement.

Hey--you're the one that said "whatever..." "Being" simply means "a living organism" and that is what a human fetus, zygote, embryo, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult, geriatric is--a human being at a particular stage of development.

 

[tecoyah]

Hey--you're the one that said "whatever..." "Being" simply means "a living organism" and that is what a human fetus, zygote, embryo, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult, geriatric is--a human being at a particular stage of development.

be·ing /ˈbiɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bee-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. (initial capital letter) God.
8. Philosophy.
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.


Ok....I can go with that. I just thought you were implying this:

human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

There is much contention about applying this term to a Zygote, Fetus, group of Cells....whatever.

 

[Ethereal]

Hey...we were instructed to go look the stuff up in the dictionary by one of yours. Can't you follow what's going on?

That's not the point. The inferences he made from the dictionary were entirely his own, and as such leaves them open to ridicule if and when his inferences are identified as erroneous - which they most certainly were that.

I have never heard any pro-choice person refer to "the unborn" as parasites. I am not saying no pro-choice people do it, but it sure as hell is not wide-spread--and I suspect you know that.

That's because you haven't been part of this forum long enough. It's one of their favorite recourses to demonizing and dehumanizing the unborn - accepting that there a few exceptions. Perhaps this forum is simply an aberrant demographic of the pro-choice movement, but who knows.

 

[talloulou]

be·ing /ˈbiɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bee-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. (initial capital letter) God.
8. Philosophy.
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.


Ok....I can go with that. I just thought you were implying this:

human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

There is much contention about applying this term to a Zygote, Fetus, group of Cells....whatever.

Really? I haven't seen a whole lot of contention. I think most rational people understand that a pregnant human is carrying a living developing member of our species in her womb. All organisms are classified. An unborn human can only be classified ONE way; Homo sapiens. If there's genuine contention over this I haven't seen it.

 

[Felicity]

be·ing /ˈbiɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bee-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. (initial capital letter) God.
8. Philosophy.
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.


Ok....I can go with that. .

Great! Per your citation, a human being is a person and per your acknowledgment here, you "can go with that." Super! I guess our dispute is solved! Glad to have you switch sides tecoyah! Welcome!!!


:mrgreen: