I am still waiting for an answer to a rather simple question:
How can the fetus in the womb be considered a human being as a matter of law if it is killed by accident or an act of homicide; but if an abortionist deliberately terminates its life it is only a mass of tissue, not unlike a tumor?
How about this one, if allowed to come to term will that fetus be anything other than a human being? Then how can it only be a mass of tissue a second before birth and a human being a second later?
Otherwise, this is all a matter of liberal semantical gymnastics used to justify the deliberate, whosale slaughter of wholly innocent human beings for selfish, mostly economic reasons, a form of murderous birth control after the fact by incredibly lazy and selfish human beings, and supported by an amoral ruling class.
Neiman - 07:11pm on 11/08/2007
The tax code is not the arbitor of my morality, but it is an arbitor of the law of the land. And I rufuse to confuse the two, as some have done. What I find morally repugnant is quite different than what I believe the law should get involved with.
I believe Christians should spend more effort on insureing we have a country that is not hostile to our way of life, (freedom to pray, spread the Gospel, and teach our own children in our own schools) and less time worrying about whether or not those outside the Church are abiding by our moral code.
T-Rex - 04:11am on 11/09/2007
The tax code is not the arbitor of my morality, but it is an arbitor of the law of the land.
Only the tax law of the land. It’s about accounting and the govt grabbing our money, not whether a human fetus is human or not; that is determined by DNA. If it weren’t Politically Incorrect, the tax code could easily be changed to include a pregnant woman as a tax deduction, then remove that deduction if the pregnancy ended. In other words, it’s simply an arbitrary dividing line, not a comment on the humanity of the human fetus. Get it?
robert108 - 08:11am on 11/09/2007
Can you imagine how impossible it would be to administer a tax program dealing with unborn children.
Claiming that the tax code is anything but the tax code is silly.
The Whistler - 08:11am on 11/09/2007
Can you imagine how impossible it would be to administer a tax program dealing with unborn children.
The only “impossible” part would be dealing with the powerful abortion lobby. In practice, it would be just as easy to present the IRS with the results of your pregnancy test as it would be to show them a birth certificate. No problem.
Taxes in this country are mostly about self-reporting, with the threat of being audited the only bar to dishonesty.
Most people cheat on their taxes to some extent, and starting the child deduction with pregnancy would change nothing in that respect.
robert108 - 08:11am on 11/09/2007
No I was just concerned with the whole process of a)when did she get pregnant b) what do you do if there is a miscarriage c)what if they lied about the whole thing?
With a live birth there’s usually a birth certificate and other easily obtained proof.
Was the kid conceived on December 31st or Jan 1?
The Whistler - 10:11am on 11/09/2007
With a live birth there’s usually a birth certificate and other easily obtained proof.
My point here was not to get into a detailed analysis of how such rules might be enforced, but simply to suggest that the tax code is arbitrary, when you come right down to it. If the rules were changed, the mechanisms of verification would be created. Demand creates supply.
The lying problem is the same; people claim dependents that they don’t have, all the time.
My overall point was to refute the contention that the tax code somehow defined humanity or personhood. That is simply ridiculous.
robert108 - 10:11am on 11/09/2007
TW: There are changes to the tax code just about every fiscal year. That’s the real nightmare.
robert108 - 10:11am on 11/09/2007
TW: There are changes to the tax code just about every fiscal year. That’s the real nightmare.
No the real nightmare is that it’s usually for the worse.
The Whistler - 11:11am on 11/09/2007
No the real nightmare is that it’s usually for the worse.
I am still waiting for an answer to a rather simple question:
How can the fetus in the womb be considered a human being as a matter of law if it is killed by accident or an act of homicide; but if an abortionist deliberately terminates its life it is only a mass of tissue, not unlike a tumor?
How about this one, if allowed to come to term will that fetus be anything other than a human being? Then how can it only be a mass of tissue a second before birth and a human being a second later?
Otherwise, this is all a matter of liberal semantical gymnastics used to justify the deliberate, whosale slaughter of wholly innocent human beings for selfish, mostly economic reasons, a form of murderous birth control after the fact by incredibly lazy and selfish human beings, and supported by an amoral ruling class.
The tax code is not the arbitor of my morality, but it is an arbitor of the law of the land. And I rufuse to confuse the two, as some have done. What I find morally repugnant is quite different than what I believe the law should get involved with.
I believe Christians should spend more effort on insureing we have a country that is not hostile to our way of life, (freedom to pray, spread the Gospel, and teach our own children in our own schools) and less time worrying about whether or not those outside the Church are abiding by our moral code.
Only the tax law of the land. It’s about accounting and the govt grabbing our money, not whether a human fetus is human or not; that is determined by DNA. If it weren’t Politically Incorrect, the tax code could easily be changed to include a pregnant woman as a tax deduction, then remove that deduction if the pregnancy ended. In other words, it’s simply an arbitrary dividing line, not a comment on the humanity of the human fetus. Get it?
Can you imagine how impossible it would be to administer a tax program dealing with unborn children.
Claiming that the tax code is anything but the tax code is silly.
The only “impossible” part would be dealing with the powerful abortion lobby. In practice, it would be just as easy to present the IRS with the results of your pregnancy test as it would be to show them a birth certificate. No problem.
Taxes in this country are mostly about self-reporting, with the threat of being audited the only bar to dishonesty.
Most people cheat on their taxes to some extent, and starting the child deduction with pregnancy would change nothing in that respect.
No I was just concerned with the whole process of a)when did she get pregnant b) what do you do if there is a miscarriage c)what if they lied about the whole thing?
With a live birth there’s usually a birth certificate and other easily obtained proof.
Was the kid conceived on December 31st or Jan 1?
My point here was not to get into a detailed analysis of how such rules might be enforced, but simply to suggest that the tax code is arbitrary, when you come right down to it. If the rules were changed, the mechanisms of verification would be created. Demand creates supply.
The lying problem is the same; people claim dependents that they don’t have, all the time.
My overall point was to refute the contention that the tax code somehow defined humanity or personhood. That is simply ridiculous.
TW: There are changes to the tax code just about every fiscal year. That’s the real nightmare.
No the real nightmare is that it’s usually for the worse.
Is there any taxation that’s “for the better”?