This is how I will know the Religious Right is serious about the "pre-born"

[jmowreader]

You know what I've never seen proposed by any of those nutballs? Tax deductibility for pregnancies that carry over from one year to the next.

It wouldn't be all that difficult to do, either. A doctor's report of pregnancy on December 31 would serve as sufficient proof for tax purposes. The next year, you'd have to close out the pregnancy by either providing a doctor's report of miscarriage, a letter from the court when you gave your baby up for adoption, or your newborn's social security number.

The strange thing is, I'm pro-choice and childless, but I think this would be a very fine thing to do--because pregnancy is very expensive and insurance requires copayments, not to mention all the things insurance does not cover like cribs and car seats. Hell, I'll even go with a one-year double deduction for any child that was conceived and born in the same year.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. And if they pay for ALL prenatal care & delivery for ALL pregnancies.

Still waiting.......tappity tap.....tappity tap............

[kestrel91316]

2. And if the pregnancy is NOT properly closed out by year's end, then the

missing persons report gets filed and the police investigation into the disappearance of the "baby" begins.

Hell, yeah! I say let's go for it. We all know who is going to need the most investigations, and it WON'T be Democrats.

[jmowreader]

3. I'd be more concerned about fraud than improperly closed out "pregnancies"

What would happen: rich people would get the dear old family doctor to gin up a report of pregnancy dated...oh, let's say November...and a report of miscarriage dated January. Staple the first to your 2008 return, the second to your 2009 and you're done. He could even file the report with the state, if that's required--first-trimester pregnancies end in miscarriage frequently enough it wouldn't raise any eyebrows. So long as you didn't try pulling that shit every year, you would definitely get away with it.

You'd see some of it in poor communities too--for $100, Dr. Smith will give you a set of documentation that will knock Big Dollars off your income tax. Doctor Smith's problems would be simple: anyone willing to accept $100 from a woman to falsify medical paperwork is willing to accept $100 from a thousand women to do it. "Doctor Smith, could you explain to us how you certified the pregnancies and miscarriages of fifty people whose social security numbers were issued to men?"

OTOH, I'm willing to accept a small amount of potential fraud for the definite benefits for middle-class women.

[kestrel91316]

4. I'm not willing to accept ANY of this nonsense. A fertilized egg is NOT a person.

I was pointing out a DOWNSIDE of conceptus personhood.

[jmowreader]

5. I know that and I agree--egg /= person

I want them to put their money where their mouths are. Literally.

Either:

1) a fertilized egg is a person, and we the village should help support it through tax manipulation

or

2) they don't actually care about the child said fertilized egg could potentially become, but rather care deeply about controlling the lives of born people they don't even know.

I think it's the latter.