Embryos are now considered "dependents" in GA for tax purposes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the Twilight Zone. It's crazy, and since the Supreme Court opened the door to it, I think embryos from forced birth states should count on Federal taxes too.

Don't you need an SSN to get a federal tax credit? I seriously doubt you'll get one without a birth certificate.

Maybe we will pivot to conception certificates if that is the definition when life begins. Clearly there is no end to reshaping our lives over the last fifty years.

[Anonymous]

!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the direction these things are heading are (carpool lanes, treating a fetus like a person) bad for the non forced-birth efforts. Quit giving them what they want. A fetus is NOT a dependent. The more these crazy ideas are catered to, the more it is normalized.

As a person who doesnt support abortion in all scenarios, this is accurate. I think all of this is great. Yes, give them tax breaks! Let them use the HOV! Force dads to pay up!

And when women on here said they wouldnt have as much premarital sex, I thought, wow, thats an unintended benefit. It would be fantastic for people to have less casual sex. Esp with monkeypox going around. I didnt expect all these social benefits from the Roe decision.

Are you aware that the WV legislature is considering repealing child support so men will no longer feel the need to pressure women into having abortions? Who could have imagined that repeal of Roe would even more imperil the well-being of women and children? Right?

No, they arent. A member of the public made this comment during a public hearing. Anyone can stand up and say anything when the public is allowed to speak during a public meeting. That doesnt mean the WV legislature decided to actually consider it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I get pregnant with quadruplets and then miscarry after filing taxes…can I keep the $15,000 deduction?

I think there's some rule about how long that person was a "dependent".

Airlines should now be able to charge pregnant women as "two persons", same for any public transportation. You should be forced to buy two bus tickets.

Airlines and buses charge per seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I get pregnant with quadruplets and then miscarry after filing taxes…can I keep the $15,000 deduction?

I think there's some rule about how long that person was a "dependent".

Airlines should now be able to charge pregnant women as "two persons", same for any public transportation. You should be forced to buy two bus tickets.

Airlines and buses charge per seat.

DP. Can you use just that one seat, but have one person sit in the other person's lap and just be charged for one seat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I get pregnant with quadruplets and then miscarry after filing taxes…can I keep the $15,000 deduction?

I think there's some rule about how long that person was a "dependent".

Airlines should now be able to charge pregnant women as "two persons", same for any public transportation. You should be forced to buy two bus tickets.

Airlines and buses charge per seat.

DP. Can you use just that one seat, but have one person sit in the other person's lap and just be charged for one seat?

Airlines allow a child up to age 2 to travel on your lap. Fee is discounted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

What?? Of course it is. If you want/ need an abortion and have to travel out of state to get one but will be prosecuted in your home state for doing so, that is absolutely banning some women from interstate travel. And with the bounty laws, you don’t think someone is going to be in parking lots taking photos and getting license plates? That $10K could be nightly enticing for some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

Enforcing it IS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I get pregnant with quadruplets and then miscarry after filing taxes…can I keep the $15,000 deduction?

I think there's some rule about how long that person was a "dependent".

Airlines should now be able to charge pregnant women as "two persons", same for any public transportation. You should be forced to buy two bus tickets.

Airlines and buses charge per seat.

DP. Can you use just that one seat, but have one person sit in the other person's lap and just be charged for one seat?

Airlines allow a child up to age 2 to travel on your lap. Fee is discounted

What about buses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

Future generations will wonder why people didn't realize what was happening at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can baby daddies be made to pay child support backdated to conception?

They should be made to pay for the medical care and partial upkeep of the mother. It takes a lot of work to carry a baby to full-term and healthy.

UPkeep? We are not talking about a mare here.

Huh? Of course we are. It's the new world order. Women are vessels to be controlled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the direction these things are heading are (carpool lanes, treating a fetus like a person) bad for the non forced-birth efforts. Quit giving them what they want. A fetus is NOT a dependent. The more these crazy ideas are catered to, the more it is normalized.

As a person who doesnt support abortion in all scenarios, this is accurate. I think all of this is great. Yes, give them tax breaks! Let them use the HOV! Force dads to pay up!

And when women on here said they wouldnt have as much premarital sex, I thought, wow, thats an unintended benefit. It would be fantastic for people to have less casual sex. Esp with monkeypox going around. I didnt expect all these social benefits from the Roe decision.

I didn't know gay men got pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

I know you think you're cute, but.... the carpool lane should be specifically for two adults. Your five-year-old shouldn't count either.

unfortunately for you, that "cute" 5 yr old does count in the carpool lane, and now so should an embryo. Government shouldn't interfere with medical decisions, either, but here we are.

The question is whether terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a medical procedure, or infanticide. This is something that cannot be made definitive, as it is a matter of opinion. Hence why states rights is the solution here. One set of rules for Texas, one set of rules for CA, everyone is happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

I know you think you're cute, but.... the carpool lane should be specifically for two adults. Your five-year-old shouldn't count either.

unfortunately for you, that "cute" 5 yr old does count in the carpool lane, and now so should an embryo. Government shouldn't interfere with medical decisions, either, but here we are.

The question is whether terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a medical procedure, or infanticide. This is something that cannot be made definitive, as it is a matter of opinion. Hence why states rights is the solution here. One set of rules for Texas, one set of rules for CA, everyone is happy.

*everyone* is not happy. There are many in TX and OH who are not happy that a 10 yr old girl who was raped would've been forced to carry and give birth to her rapist's baby. There are many pregnant women, and their partners, who are not happy that if she should miscarry, that she would be forced to wait till there is no heartbeat, possibly putting the mother's life at risk, to get the medical treatment she needs.

I know you like to think that we live in lalaland where all pregnancies are only a result of consensual sex or that mother's never miscarry such that their lives are put at risk, but this is not lalaland.

As someone who used to be very prolife (grew up religious), as I got older, and wiser, I realized that life is not black and white. Life can be ugly and have shades of gray. Even my pastor acknowledged that he would choose to abort if the mother's life was in danger.

I also realized that the "Prolifers" weren't about saving the life of a baby at all, but rather about punishing women for having sex.

Also, I keep hearing that incels who are violent towards women do so because women won't have sex with them. But, here are probirthers stating that women shouldn't have sex.

Oh, and did you know that many women who seek abortions are actually married, and that they seek abortion because they cannot afford another mouth to feed? Yep.. my parents went through that. They had four kids, lower income; she was 48, dad was 55. OH, I know.. they should use birth control. Did you know that birth control is not 100% effective. Oh, that's right, they shouldn't have sex, then, right?

IMO, the perfect solution to all of this is to force men to have vasectomies. If the government can force women to carry babies, why can't they force men to have vasectomies?

Also, a fetus may have a heartbeat, but that life cannot exist outside the womb. You seem more concerned with a clump of cells than you do actual live children.