Hey Conservative Ideologues ... Stand Up or ... Shut Up!

O the left: Massive outcries about giving out a tax break based on a "life" that most liberals don't consider a person to begin with.

On the contrary ... lefties like me believe not just in birth ... but life after birth.

Which party fights for tax breaks for WEALTHY lives, but fights against extended tax breaks for us middle class lives?

And I find it self-contradictory that the same ideologues who scream re-distrubution of wealth are always looking for de-distribution ... like the Bush tax cuts f'rinstance.

Anyway, Pat N ... how are ya' and always good to see you.

Especially if that 'dependent' is a life that they don't consider a person to begin with.

I don't believe I've ever heard any liberal make that claim. The issue has never been the tax/dependent issue, rather these "smaller government" hypocrites foisting their ideology on (mostly) women.

Question: It's typically the wealthier folks that can afford in-vitro which frequently results in multiple embryos. My cousin ended up with triplets via the method. Many couples end up with twins. So under this proposal, could these upper-middle class and wealthier couples claim multiple dependents?

The method of conception is not germane to my issue. Be it a single embryo or multiple embryos ... a life is a life and as such, dependent ... so, any/all ideologues who make that a political issue, should they not be willing (for tax or any other purposes) to regard them as a "life" based on selective caveats ... that's hypocrisy in my mind.

Glad you are well.

It's just not a "person" yet. Or a child worthy of a dependent tax deduction.

If a (human) life (embryo/fetus) isn't a person ... then what is it if not a "person" in its earliest stage of life. Unfortunately, I believe the conservatives trying to pass "personhood" legislation, in playing with words for political/ideological agenda reasons, are actually going to see the effort backfire.

it looks like my prediction that liberals would have a hard time swallowing the idea of a dependent tax break for a life that they don't yet consider a person...is accurate.

I don't see that ... but if you can show the specific statements, I'll certainly consider your assessment.

A woman could claim to be pregnant every month and make 12 claims a year.

You know, I actually thought readers would be smart enough to understand that the pregnancy/conception would have to be verified by a physician should an IRS audit result from a claimed deduction.

Don't you think a claim of twelve pregnancies/conceptions by one woman for a single tax year might raise a red flag or two?

But I must say, your rebuttal was not a quip ... it actually did raise a fair point ...

Which I answered.

But beyond that, you begged the question ... if a life begins at conception, then, like other lives in early stages, born or un-born, IT'S DEPENDENT ... and therefor a legitimate deduction.

My God, the Religious right would have a fit.

But ... they're pro ...

... Birth.

It's providing health care and tax breaks for the already born (middle class and poor) they find indefensible ...

Actually I was thinking of the low regard most leftist and abortion supporters have for little human lives more than anything else.

And while Texasguy01 was "thinking" that ... I was thinking ...

How the hell can anyone be simultaneously PRO-life, Pro-gun, Pro-war, Pro-death penalty, Pro-torture, anti-environment (yoo hoo ... it's God's earth you Creationists!) and anti-health insurance for those "little human lives."

Unless of course he/she is a hypocrite.

Any more thoughts that I can shred, dude?

tomwcraig,

My issue is not a tax issue per se ... which yours is ... and I agree with much of what you posted.

My issue is the inconsistency and hypocrisy of legislators/candidates who pander for effect and votes but, who, when pressed to stand by their pandering, talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Thank you Socrates1, I appreciate your comment.

Already submitted to the local Newspaper and my U.S. Representative ...

Why should one group of mothers (poor) who pay no income tax, get a tax deduction?

That's your bigoted-innuendo talking; I didn't say the tax deductions should be based on class or income ...

I wonder if this author has any more good ideas?

Yeah ... I'd like you to keep posting so that I can show where complicated ideas die of loneliness.

Good one, huh?

Concepts stand out more boldly when placed against their opposites ... I like when the zeal-without-knowledge comments come ...

It keeps us more aware of what we're up against.

So I should also be able to get Life Insurance policies on my fetuses? That would be cool that you could collect a big Insurance Policy in the case of a miscarriage. Could you collect Social Security Death Benefits too?

Well, let's see ... if abortion is "murder" (which, in some instances may well be the case), then it logically follows that it's life, doesn't it? And there have been criminal convictions in which, where a pregnant woman was murdered ...

Double murder is a term used to describe the act of unlawfully killing two people. This is commonly punished by back-to-back life sentences.

It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered, thereby killing her unborn fetus, such as in the Laci Peterson case.^[1]

So which is it? You seem to want to give a fetus the same protections under the law when it comes to preserving its "life" (correct me if I'm wrong), but draw the line on what the government provides to lives at other junctures.

My point exactly ... legislators/candidates that wish to ascribe the religious meaning and designations of "life" into the Constitution and other laws, can't do so without being hypocrites if they simultaneously deny other rights to the living ...

That's a double standard and I want to know which legislators/candidates have the balls to publicly, either reject or accept my position.

You're the one who raised Social Security and Insurance. I only raised the question as to whether or not a "life that begins at conception" is a dependent.

Under law ...

A dependent is someone who is unable to care for or support themselves and looks for such care and/or support from another. Under (CURRENT) tax rules of the Internal Revenue service, a person may claim a tax exemption for a dependent who has a certain relationship to the taxpayer, such as a son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father, etc., or who makes the taxpayer's household his or her primary residence.

A person qualifying as your dependent generally may be your child, stepchild, adopted child, grand child, great-grand child, son or daughter in law, father or mother in law, brother or sister in law, parent, brother, sister, grand parent, step-parent, stepbrother or sister, half brother or sister, and, if related by blood, uncle, aunt, niece, or nephew. The above relatives do not have to live with you.

Note the word PERSON ... the Republicans in the various states pushing "Personhood" legislation have created this box in which I'd like to stuff them.

The GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates Monday advanced a "fetal personhood" bill that would give legal rights to a human fertilized egg and a measure that would require women seeking abortions to first undergo trans-vaginal ultrasound tests. Delegates rejected an amendment that would have ensured contraception remains legal once the personhood bill goes into effect.

The personhood bill, sponsored by Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William), defines the word "personhood" in the Code of Virginia as beginning at the moment of fertilization. Voters in Mississippi, one of the most socially conservative states in the nation, rejected a similar measure in October because it complicated the legality of stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, abortion in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, and certain kinds of birth control.

You righties did this to yourselves ... it is my objective to make you own your hypocrisy.

Emmadog,

I have no illusions, but at the same time, would this not be a perfect bit of campaign rhetoric to throw at Republicans in a debate?

There is only one thing I can add, your only mistake was trying to have a dialogue with ideologues. All you'll ever have a one-sided monologue. (And it won't be from you!!!!!!!!)

I never expect "dialogue" from ideologues ... I just enjoy watching their ideologies bite them in the ass!

Peace to you as well.

Thank you ... and ... FR accepted.