Those heartbeat laws (abortion).... yeah this is what happens.

[VRAMdemon]

That’s Georgia’s bill. Not Ohio where this child is. Ohio’s bill has no such provisions for rape or incest.

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

Yes..My apologies for the confusion..But the Ohio, Georgia and the one they are trying to push through in Alabama are all rooted and tangled with oddites, contradictions and what ifs. Years ago conservatives then poo-pooed the notion as fear mongering that a woman might be prosecuted for a miscarriage yet here we are. And not to mention the notion of defining the fetus as a person. The sticking points arise from ANY law going to great lengths to declare that as soon as an embryo has a detectable heartbeat, it is a "natural person" and has the right to Equal Protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.

I also find it interesting that the law (The Georgia one) determines that personhood begins when a heartbeat is detectable, not when the heart actually begins to beat. That, of course, is a practical matter. Yet if the heartbeat is used as the determination of personhood, it would make sense to declare that natural personhood even earlier, at 3 weeks + 1 day. The issue of personhood is complex. The law both tries to simplify it and cover it completely and fails at both, as it was bound to do.

 

[zinfamous]

That would be me. A government so small it can fit in your vagina. It's a saying that's been around for 20 years or so.

ah yes. your phrasing is far more eloquent.

 

[HomerJS]

I would love if some enterprising young couple one of which is a lawyer where the wife becomes pregnant attempts to obtain a social security number and deduct her pregnancy as a dependent. Disclose to the government they are doing it. The agencies will deny them and then they sue the government for denial of the claims for their "baby". This case would be filed in tax court and there is no way they would rule the woman's fetus is a person.

This case then can be used as precedent to knock down all the attempts at implementing these new anti-abortion laws

 

[SMOGZINN]

This case would be filed in tax court and there is no way they would rule the woman's fetus is a person.

The courts would not rule if it is a person or not because being a person is not the only requirement for being a dependent. The courts would rule that the 'baby' does not currently meet the very specific requirements for being a dependent based on the current law.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The courts would not rule if it is a person or not because being a person is not the only requirement for being a dependent. The courts would rule that the 'baby' does not currently meet the very specific requirements for being a dependent based on the current law.

I dunno, the tax code doesn't have a minimum age for children.

You could probably argue that if they aren't born yet, they aren't citizens, and thus could not be a dependent. That now introduces a new wrinkle: If an unborn child is a person but a non-citizen, can they be deported under current immigration law? If the mother refuses to part with the child, is she eligible for deportation as well?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I dunno, the tax code doesn't have a minimum age for children.

You could probably argue that if they aren't born yet, they aren't citizens, and thus could not be a dependent. That now introduces a new wrinkle: If an unborn child is a person but a non-citizen, can they be deported under current immigration law? If the mother refuses to part with the child, is she eligible for deportation as well?

Yeah, these laws are going to create all sorts of weird legal problems.

To be a dependent you must have a SSN or ITIN, so the first step would be to sue to get a SSN, which requires a birth certificate. You might be able to get some sort of religious 'certificate of conception' that the courts would accept in lieu of a birth certificate.
I'm beginning to believe that this would actually be possible.

 

[HomerJS]

The courts would not rule if it is a person or not because being a person is not the only requirement for being a dependent. The courts would rule that the 'baby' does not currently meet the very specific requirements for being a dependent based on the current law.

Here are the rules for being a depandent
https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/hows/tax_tutorials/mod04/tt_mod04_01.jsp

If you look each test passes. The age test just requires dependent be younger then you with a max of 19 years old.

Methinks one may have a case.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Here are the rules for being a depandent
https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/hows/tax_tutorials/mod04/tt_mod04_01.jsp

If you look each test passes. The age test just requires dependent be younger then you with a max of 19 years old.

Methinks one may have a case.

One has to be a citizen, that's a hard requirement unless they start accepting pre-birth orders or giving out birth certificates before birth.

 

[HomerJS]

One has to be a citizen, that's a hard requirement unless they start accepting pre-birth orders or giving out birth certificates before birth.

Remember a person is "born" at conception. If both parents are US citizens then the fetus is a citizen.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Remember a person is "born" at conception. If both parents are US citizens then the fetus is a citizen.

Only if it can be proven, which is generally via a birth certificate or SSN (predicated upon the former). There's a tradition in the US of refusing to believe that a person is a citizen without one

 

[HomerJS]

Only if it can be proven, which is generally via a birth certificate or SSN (predicated upon the former). There's a tradition in the US of refusing to believe that a person is a citizen without one

Birth certificates are verification of birth. Example if both parents are dead and you need to prove you are a citizen.

In this case the proof is in front of your eyes. Just show the sonogram at trial. The live "person" is displayed in the mother's womb and both parents are already citizens.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Birth certificates are verification of birth. Example if both parents are dead and you need to prove you are a citizen.

In this case the proof is in front of your eyes. Just show the sonogram at trial. The live "person" is displayed in the mother's womb and both parents are already citizens.

Might work, i'd be thrilled to see the precedent set.

 

[DarthKyrie]

ah yes. your phrasing is far more eloquent.

People have called me a lot of things but I don't think eloquent has ever been one.

 

[interchange]

I also find it interesting that the law (The Georgia one) determines that personhood begins when a heartbeat is detectable, not when the heart actually begins to beat. That, of course, is a practical matter. Yet if the heartbeat is used as the determination of personhood, it would make sense to declare that natural personhood even earlier, at 3 weeks + 1 day. The issue of personhood is complex. The law both tries to simplify it and cover it completely and fails at both, as it was bound to do.

Heartbeat is also a very fuzzy kind of thing to accept as a measure of life in the womb. The heart is a non-functioning organ with incomplete development when spontaneous contraction begins, and I'm not sure at what point you could say fetal heart function is necessary to supplant maternal circulation for development. But it's also prioritizing the heart as the organ responsible for life. I suppose it's the most critical organ to sustain adult life apart from brainstem, but so what? Why does that make you human? To further complicate things, brain death is legally considered death, although with some inconsistent definition, but generally brain death can be someone with no cerebral brain function at all but in tact brainstem and therefore heart and lung activity without assistance.

 

[kage69]

I posted before that females shouldn't accept this regressive bullshit, maybe take a cue from Lysistrata. Well it seems some of the ladies think so too!

Alyssa Milano calls for a sex strike Bette Midler too.

I think people clutching pearls over using "sex as a weapon" can fuck right the hell off as well. Vaginas are a bit of a liability in these states. I can't blame women at all for empowering themselves with every "tool" at their disposal, especially one so related. This is autonomy we're talking about after all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would love if some enterprising young couple one of which is a lawyer where the wife becomes pregnant attempts to obtain a social security number and deduct her pregnancy as a dependent. Disclose to the government they are doing it. The agencies will deny them and then they sue the government for denial of the claims for their "baby". This case would be filed in tax court and there is no way they would rule the woman's fetus is a person.

This case then can be used as precedent to knock down all the attempts at implementing these new anti-abortion laws

Oh, I very much like how you are thinking about this.

 

[umbrella39]

The conservaterrorist American Taliban as usual trying to push their Sharia Law on all Americans.

Interesting that Christian hypocrites think they are any better than Muslims and their religious ferver...

Same cloth...

Same cut...

 

[Commodus]

I posted before that females shouldn't accept this regressive bullshit, maybe take a cue from Lysistrata. Well it seems some of the ladies think so too!

Alyssa Milano calls for a sex strike Bette Midler too.

I think people clutching pearls over using "sex as a weapon" can fuck right the hell off as well.

As someone who studied Greek plays in university, I love the idea of doing that -- the only catch is that the women who most need to do it (the partners of the Republicans who put this forward) are the ones least likely to do it.

I suspect the most effective counter, apart from the seemingly likely court overturn, is business. Movie studios start refusing to film, businesses refuse to set up new offices, that sort of thing.

 

[kage69]

As someone who studied Greek plays in university, I love the idea of doing that -- the only catch is that the women who most need to do it (the partners of the Republicans who put this forward) are the ones least likely to do it.

I suspect the most effective counter, apart from the seemingly likely court overturn, is business. Movie studios start refusing to film, businesses refuse to set up new offices, that sort of thing.

I trust in women knowing the difference between an ally and a Trump supporting, card carrying republican if they are involved with said partner. It's why I got more ass than an astronaut in college. It's probably a moot point anyway, already hard enough for Trump employees and supporters to date, and I think the last 2+ years has had women pretty agitated already.

Well well.. We’re in a sexual recession—driven by the youth. Maybe it's already happening haha

Agree on the boycott, big supporter of letting republicans taste the same action they like to use on others. No Home Depot, no UPS, and I already don't drink Coca cola products.

 

[Jaskalas]

I posted before that females shouldn't accept this regressive bullshit, maybe take a cue from Lysistrata. Well it seems some of the ladies think so too!

Alyssa Milano calls for a sex strike Bette Midler too.

I think people clutching pearls over using "sex as a weapon" can fuck right the hell off as well. Vaginas are a bit of a liability in these states. I can't blame women at all for empowering themselves with every "tool" at their disposal, especially one so related. This is autonomy we're talking about after all.

Alyssa Milano’s Call For A Sex Strike Sparks Debate On Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1127208960895877120

It is not without some protest.

 

[kage69]

Alyssa Milano’s Call For A Sex Strike Sparks Debate On Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1127208960895877120

It is not without some protest.

I agree it's not the correct way. But then we're dealing with republicans, who aren't known for their grasp on the basics. They think they have the right to subjugate women via legislation. Until that itself can be resolved in their lost little minds, this may require 'tougher measures for tougher customers.'

I've seen and heard females themselves cite numerous reasons to shut down the buffet. Can't say I can recall a single one more important or impactful to their lives than religious agendas like this.

Btw, very proud of my new home Vermont House Passes Abortion-Rights Protections

 

[BUTCH1]

IMHO all these 5-6 week laws were written expressly to get to a SCOTUS attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade. With Kavanuts now a member they figure they might have a shot.

 

[TheVrolok]

Alyssa Milano’s Call For A Sex Strike Sparks Debate On Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1127208960895877120

It is not without some protest.

This thread aside, I think that's actually a fairly narrow view of sex/sexuality from the feminist.

 

[Commodus]

IMHO all these 5-6 week laws were written expressly to get to a SCOTUS attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade. With Kavanuts now a member they figure they might have a shot.

Oh, I don't think they're even trying to hide that fact. They know they'll face a court challenge, that they'll likely be shot down, and that they hope to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court.

With that said, it seems like a very risky prospect even with Republicans rigging the SCOTUS. Georgia's law in particular could easily be struck down since it punishes women who seek legal abortions in other states... I'm pretty sure that's overstepping jurisdiction.

To some extent, this is as much about a dog-and-pony show as anything. "See, we hate abortion! Now remember that in 2020, even though our law was thoroughly rejected by the courts."

 

[Vic]

I'm not pro-life, but...



...That's how dumb you sound. It's like you can't grasp that different people can have different moral precepts, and they aren't all the same as yours. Granting the premise that abortion is murder, then saying "Well, you don't need to murder your unborn child but other people can murder theirs" sounds psychopathic. The proper response from a pro-choice perspective is to get down to first principles. Eg. "I don't agree with your assertion that abortion is murder, and here's why..."

How is it that woman you would force to bear and raise a child against her will is not a slave?