• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

If I conceive a child in November of 2016 can I get a child tax credit for 2016 and for 2017 when he is born?

that'd be awesome
 
If I let my child be born and then take him to Afghanistan or Iraq and put him in the line of American fire to be eliminated then I'm ok with the big guy upstairs and all that right? I'm pretty sure that there is no outrage from the pro-lifers about collateral damage for wars of aggression.
 
i'll take the billions owed to me for all my sperms waiting for viable eggs

thanks in advance
 
Ball State Deac said:
In fairness, I'd like a tax credit to start at conception as well.
Click to expand...

Wrangor, if life begins at conception, why don't tax breaks begin at conception as well? Explain don't just dismiss.
 
More importantly, life insurance should start at conception as well. That way, I could have insured the miscarriages we had to help finance the fertility treatments and the $100K we paid to adopt.
 
Wrangor said:
Who said they couldn't? Why not? I have no problem with giving a person/family a tax break in the year of conception. Couple that with a ban on abortions and I am happy as a lark. Pregnancies are expensive. I would be all for starting the tax benefits as soon as the child is conceived. I never said otherwise, you simply assumed. My comment regarding wake and bake was due to his clear intentions to simply make a mockery of the issue rather than address it. If you notice my posts, I am one of the few people on this thread that doesn't evade when asked a tough question. This is a serious issue, and I do my best to give it a serious answer.
Click to expand...

The whole issue is a mockery of our intelligence, winger. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. You support the killing of innocent children and you cannot wriggle out of that no matter how hard you try. Unless you are an across-the-board pacifist who only supports military action in extreme cases to thwart invaders that ends at our borders - then in my opinion you are a hypocrite if you go around saying you support the 'sanctity of life' while soldiers bearing the stars and stripes bomb areas with civilians. How can you justify one and condemn the other? Because it is 'spreading freedom?" Because you believe the Iraqi's are "better off?"

You fucked up supporting that war, sir. It was a war of aggression and an offense and it resulted in the killing of children in and out of the womb.

It is a very serious issue and it has existed since long before the Bible or Jesus or the founding fathers. It is a women's issue. What we have in place is a reasonable compromise. if you don't want an abortion, you don't get one. If you want one, you have a safe place/environment to get one and then it is between you and your God/family/conscience.

Plus, the fact that the Bible (the book that informs your every decision) itself does not directly condemn a practice that existed at the time and before it was written should be noted. Why is that? Seems a glaring omission, along with homosexuality which received scant attention in the Old Testament and yet Jesus never really brought it up, as far as we know. Odd don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
Why not, the rates would ridiculously high, but I am sure they could insure it based on the %'s and the health history of the mother and her family. Ya'll act like insuring a child in the womb is ridiculous or that tax breaks because of a conception would be unmanageable when in actuality it would be quite easy. Where there is a market there is insurance. You obviously couldn't give tax breaks unless abortion was illegal as some sickos would get pregnant and then abort to keep collecting tax breaks, but in a world where abortions are illegal, giving a tax break to a pregnant parent makes all the sense in the world.
Click to expand...

Oh my has winger been hitting the sauce?
 
DeaconSig said:
More importantly, life insurance should start at conception as well. That way, I could have insured the miscarriages we had to help finance the fertility treatments and the $100K we paid to adopt.
Click to expand...

Damn. Adoption ain't cheap. Where does the money go?
 
That's it? That's all I get? No outrage from team Winger? No sanctimony from the man himself for how hateful and vitriolic I am towards the resident Evangelical?

His board has lost its vigor. It's sackless
 
Yeah WnB gets super strange when he gets on these threads. I don't agree with Wrangor on much but it's weird seeing someone so eager to either pick a fight or play a gotcha game with him. I think when he writes one of these posts he feels like he's just killin it, not different from when jhmd writes one with a [sic], text in strike through, and a reference to the Sociology department. Basically the triple crown of message board posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top