Lone Pregnant Woman Driving in HOV Lane Not in Violation

Are you saying you don't know the difference between a fetus literally growing inside a woman's body versus sexual intercourse? You have a lot to learn.

 

Good grief. You used the terms inside and outside. Now you’re changing again. None of this changes the fact it is not her DNA therefore it is not hers.

 

I'm not changing anything. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand a fetus is in fact part of a woman's body considering the fetus actually grows and lives INSIDE a woman's body for a number of months. How is it possible you can think a fetus isn't part of a woman given that the fetus is literally inside a woman's body?

 

Like I said you can argue the parasitic argument but it is not her body and the DNA scientifically proves that. Any part of the woman’s body has her DNA, this does not so it is not part of her body period

 

The only way a fetus can't be part of a woman's body is if it grows outside of the woman's body. Seems you believe this.

 

Damn dude… no I said it’s not part of her body because of DNA… are you having a hard time understanding what DNA is? DNA does not equate to inside or outside, they’re not synonymous at all. So quit pretending I’m making some point that I am obviously not referring to. If you can’t quit putting words in my mouth this conversation is over

 

You're not making sense. You should probably read some basic science books on pregnancies. You'll discover the fetus is part of a woman's body. I tried to educate you but it's been a fool's errand. Good luck to you. Hope you learn something new.

 

Not even remotely surprising. A fetus is only a person when it comes to the abortion debate. For every other instance, both legally and socially, it is regarded the same as it always has been. A future person.

And with good reason. For example, can you imagine if pregnant women had to buy an extra ticket to travel, since they are bringing an extra "person".

 

Courtesy of the late great Carlin

If a fetus is a human being why doesn’t the census count them?
If a fetus is a human being how come when there’s a miscarriage they don’t have a funeral?
If a fetus is a human being how come people say we have two children and one on the way, instead of saying we have three children?

 

Has the thought crossed your mind that both terms are accurate and effectively mean the exact same thing? Pro choice= Pro-abortion. Pro abortion means you want abortions to be legal, which means that women have the choice what to do with their pregnancy. Why you want to embrace one and outright deny the other is puzzling.

If you disagree, your argument is with Merriam Webster, NOT with me. I personally stand with Merriam.

 

Is she though? The moment that kid is born and you put it in a car seat she could drive in a HOV lane and the police would not care. If we are talking spirit of the law, that new born would not be able to drive itself or call an uber or ride a bus on its own.

 

See, I don't understand HOV lanes if people use it just to take the family out to dinner.. or the kid to the day care.. I thought it was for carpooling only and the purpose of the lane to cut down on cars by offering an incentive. We don't have those lanes where I am so I'm not really familiar..

 

Same difference. EDIT: No doubt previous to this, Corporations through taxes, candidates they support and insurance policies pay for abortion. This just further shows how committed they are to getting abortions for women.

 

I thought HOV lanes were pretty much everywhere that have major roadways or interstates.

The goal of HOV lanes is to cut down on the number of cars on the road but the enforcement is strictly based on the number of occupants. It would be a literal nightmare if the policed pulled people over and you had to prove where you are going (because things like daycare, dinner, shopping probably would not count) prove the reason you are in the HOV lane is because the other occupants would be driving to work if they were not in this car, (people without driver license would instantly be disqualified and everyone under the legal driving age would be disqualified).

The traffic police would essentially have to pull over ever car and asked a series of question to discern if the met "the spirit" of being in an HOV lane.

I stated earlier, now that this is legal precedent it could essentially destroy HOV lanes. Essentially cops can no longer pull over single occupant female drivers because they can all claim to be pregnant and there is not easy way the police can dispute that on the spot. If cops resort to only pulling men over it can lead to discrimination claims and unfair treatment. They would need a way to test the females for pregnancy to maintain fairness. I don't see that happening anytime soon so my guess is all HOV lanes will be available to everyone regardless of occupancy.

 

"The officer responded that the rule applies to "two people outside of the body."

Officer covered the concept and spirit of the law fairly easy.

 

Nope. Not same difference. In fact, very different.

 

Pro-choice does not equate to pro-abortion nor does it have anything to do with the legality of abortion. Read Post #4 for comprehension. The 9th Amendment protects a woman's right to undergo an abortion or ear piercing or breast augmentation or whatever floats her boat about her body without YOUR consent or the consent of the state. You're "puzzled" because you are extremely narrow minded and have been indoctrinated into a specific belief system. It's not about me or "Merriam" it's about YOUR limited mentality cannot grasp these simple concepts.

 

I heard the officer quoted the law wrong. The law only refers to the number of people in the vehicle. There is no reference to being outside of the body in the regulation.

 

Meh. If you change what I wrote, that might be difficult, "there really are substantial forces that want young women to get an abortion. Corporations are pushing this, paying for their pregnant employees to get one and then get back into the veal pens." I'm sure corporations have actually paid women to get abortions rather than deliver as profits were on the line. Not something they're going to publicize. But absolutely they support abortion. You can tell that through NPR, PBS and corporate legacy media, how much they want abortion.

But back on topic, I agree, to count as car pooling, the kid ought to have to be in a passenger seat, not in her belly.

 

Nope. Corporations are pushing no one to get an abortion. They are merely helping with the cost of now having to travel depending on which state a person resides.

 

Do you believe that there are at times, maybe even most of the time, that there are profits to be had by corporations if their employees get an abortion rather than have a live birth? I think that is so. And I think corporations will follow the money.

 

No corporation pushes women to get abortions. It's beyond absurd to even suggest such.

 

...which takes us full circle to where this conversation began.

proabortion
adjective

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


: favoring the legalization of abortion


...according to Merriam Webster, it has EVERYTHING to do with the legality of abortion, as it is the very definition of the term.

Did you not see this the first time I posted it to you? Or did you simply ignore it because it did not comport with your preconceived notions and you figured you would pretend it did not exist and then pretend as if you have the right to be condescending because my definition of the term matches precisely with the dictionary definition?

Feigned condescension does nothing to further your point. As I said before, your argument is NOT with ME. It is with Merriam Webster. Good luck with that. You can say that pro-abortion is not your preferred term perhaps, but you cannot redefine its meaning, which is precisely what you are trying to do.


PS- It was with your "post number4" where you first put forth your definition that clashes with the dictionary. I understood everything you wrote, I simply disagreed and the dictionary backed up my position. Unfortunately, it contradicted yours (see above)

 

"spirit" of the law. But ok. We can go to trial on this and we can waste court's opinion as to if a pregnant woman counts as 1 body or two.

And if they deem that the pregnant woman is actually two people, then I should think that they then need to purchase two plane tickets because the second person inside of them should not be flying for free.

Should we go down this road or no?

 

The "conversation" began at Post #1 when I started this thread. I'm not going on a merry-go-round with you. I stated what I stated quite clearly and I stand by what I stated. If you don't get it it's your problem, not mine. I have no obligation or any incentive to educate you on simple concepts.