171
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
171 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10132 readers
93 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's entirely bullshit as well. They know it's bullshit because the IRS doesn't see a fetus as legally a person. 🤔hmm, so when it comes to collecting money, not a person but when it comes to restricting the rights of a fully alive human being, a fetus is totally a person. I see, I see. The inconsistency of our laws is outstanding. I bet if you asked any anti-abortion tool they'd try to justify the IRS rather than saying "Oh that should change too!" Some bullshit like "Well the fetus isn't really costing you money yet!" (Bullshit, being pregnant is expensive and difficult and prevents people from working.) or "We can't just give tax cuts to people who are only pregnant, what if they give the baby up for adoption." (Still costs them money to be pregnant and our federal laws acknowledge that with maternity leave.) Then they'd probably attack maternity leave. Saying we should get rid of that too.