Lone Pregnant Woman Driving in HOV Lane Not in Violation

The babies… not hers.

the dna even says it’s the babies and not her but I see science is hard for you to grasp

 

So the fetus wasn't ours? Hmmmm....you seem to be very confused about how this all works

 

No the fetus is the babies. It is not possible for your body to have 2 types of DNA. That fetus was the babies and its also human DNA which makes it murder in my opinion. I believe you are the one confused. Anyone who thinks another persons DNA is their body is drastically confused.

 

So then if a woman is not charged with murder for aborting her baby, then her boyfriend shouldn’t be charged with murder for feeding her abortion pills and aborting the baby. Right?

 

The fetus is inside the woman, correct? If you agree on that then you agree the fetus is in fact part of the woman's body.

 

You must be living in some kind of fantasy world then. The fetus is most definitely part of the host mother until it isn't.

It doesn't mention a lot of things but it does mention inherent rights. That's what I was trying to point out to you.

 

I guess you didn't understand what I posted. I'm not going to explain it again.

 

Well no I don’t understand because if your position is that these types of laws are inconsistent… sure… but you don’t seem to care if they’re fixed or not. So why does it matter?

 

If abortion is murder we need to execute women for it

 

pro-abortion
adjective

pro·abor·tion | \ ˌprō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən \
Definition of proabortion

: favoring the legalization of abortion


...Hmmm. According to Merriam Webster, there is a term for your position. It is pro-abortion. I am pro-abortion too because I think it should be legal. Why are you denying it?

Your position is like saying that you are for Capital Punishment but not pro-death penalty because you only favor it under extreme circumstances. That statement does not make a lot of sense. Extreme circumstances are already baked in the cake in both instances. The primary difference there being that with the death penalty the "extreme circumstance" is usually a heinous murder, and with the abortion the "extreme circumstance" is a woman who does not want the baby.

 

Why? You know how to Internet, right? This isn't hard. Are you doubting it happens? OK, fine, here's an example:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-travel-companies-paying-benefits-amazon-starbucks-target/
From CBS Money Watch, "These companies are paying for abortion travel",

 

Hahahahaha....these companies are helping its employees with the cost of having to travel for an abortion. That is not the same as paying them off to have the abortion. My lord....hahahaha

From YOUR link, which you clearly didn't read as below is the very first two paragraphs.

"In the wake of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, major corporations are adding abortion travel costs to their employee benefits.

The goal is to ensure their employees can seek abortion care if they live in states where the procedure is now or will soon be illegal."

 

Actually, no.

Pro Choice means you acknowledge that you do not have the right to make other people's choices for them. You can not choose abortion for yourself, you can recommend against it for others, but you accept that you cannot make the final choice for others.

Too many people see it as an absolute such as 'pro-abortion'. It's not.

 

I myself think we we should raise the age of the abortable fetus to 18. See if the little zygote wouldn't keep his room clean if I refuse to give him a name and make him help me sharpen bone saws in the garage over the weekend

 

I started this thread to point out the lunacy of one particular "law" and pointed out that over 90% of "laws" are unconstitutional. I never said anything about not caring if these "laws" are fixed or not. The only way to "fix" unconstitutional "laws" is to nullify and void them as unconstitutional, which they are from inception. Unfortunately they exist under color of law and are enforced under color of law.

 

If the law does not specify (people outside of the body) then she is right! people take advantage of loopholes all the time but they are usually rich. I see nothing wrong with this woman trying to capitalize on a loophole (if in fact it is not specified int he written law)

 

This has likely been pointed out before. The reason for the double occupancy is to reduce traffic. Rather than having one person in each car making multiple trips, only one trip is required. There is no saving of a trip in her case.

 

The fetus is not part of a woman’s body. You can give a DNA test to every part of the woman’s body and they will all match but the fetus won’t. It is separate from her body. You can argue the parasitic argument but it most definitely is not part of her body.

 

So you think the fetus is created and grows OUTSIDE of the woman's body? Hmmm...I don't think you understand how this all works.

 

Family DNA. The fetus will share the DNA of both parents.

 

Yes but it’s still distinct DNA to that child. That DNA will still be different than a siblings DNA. It is unique to that specific fetus/person

 

Wrong it's called pro-choice. I thought I made that clear.

No it isn't and for the record I'm against both.

 

I never said it was outside. I’m not going to debate with someone who puts words in my mouth. It’s a shame you had to resort to that. Good bye

 

So then you agree the fetus is INSIDE the woman. Therefore you agree the fetus is part of the woman's body.

 

Being inside does not make it part of the woman’s body. Is a penis a woman’s part during sex?