Lone Pregnant Woman Driving in HOV Lane Not in Violation

So I provide a dictionary definiton that 100% directly contradicts your claim in post 4, and instead of admitting the obvious ( which is that you are wrong), you first try to pretend like I simply was not able to comprehend your wisdom. When faced with the exact same irrefutable proof a second time, rather tahn FINALLY admitting your obvious misuse of the term, you instead declare that you are not "going on a merry-go-round with me"?

LOL. That's funny.

It's fine too. My point has been proven regardless. My only hope was that perhaps you would have accepted that point with dignity. I perhaps expected too much. My bad.

 

then she gets a doctor to separate them.... the right supporting abortion?

 

Horse caca. You provided a dictionary definition for "pro-abortion" which is NOT "pro-choice" no matter how much you want it to be. They are 2 completely separate and distinct terms and you can't or refuse to grasp that simple concept that a grade school child should easily be able to grasp.

 

Some pro-abortion folks want to try and have it both ways, FAW, but they can't.

And let's call that what it is: Cowardice.

The people who can make a moral, intellectual and legal argument in support of their position and have the courage of their convictions don't have that problem.

Full disclosure: I'm pro-abortion, and my argument is in my signature.

 

pro-choice
adjective

\ (ˌ)prō-ˈchȯis \
Definition of pro-choice
: favoring the legalization of abortion
Pro-choice Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster





pro-abortion
adjective

pro·abor·tion | \ ˌprō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən \
Definition of proabortion
: favoring the legalization of abortion
Proabortion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster





....Hmmm. Are you SURE about that? As I said, your beef is with Merriam- Webster, NOT with me.

 

No it's you playing that silly game. It's you trying to insist the word "abortion" is exactly the same as "choice" because of your myopic mentality.

 

pro-choice
adjective

\ (ˌ)prō-ˈchȯis \
Definition of pro-choice
: favoring the legalization of abortion
Pro-choice Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster





pro-abortion
adjective

pro·abor·tion | \ ˌprō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən \
Definition of proabortion
: favoring the legalization of abortion
Proabortion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster





....Hmmm. Are you SURE about that? As I said, your beef is with Merriam- Webster, NOT with me. Clearly, both terms are define by Merriam-Webster as "favoring the legalization of abortion". Not one word differs in either entry's stated definition, nor are there other alternative definitions provided.

It will be interesting to see what your next tactic is to pretend like you have not been proven wrong.

 

And believe me, we are grateful!

 

It appears it is with you and Merriam-Webster as well if you actually found that in their dictionary. So I stand corrected as to what you discovered. As for me "choice" and "abortion" are NOT one and the same and never have been. Adding "pro" in front of both words still do not make them one and the same.

 

I doubt that. Too much money in it for them to ignore.
But, ever seen the movie, "Knocked Up"? In it, an employer is afraid to tell the heroine she needs to lose weight in order to be attractive on air. Likely illegal to do so. So he says she needs to "tighten".
Same with abortion. They cannot come out and tell a woman to get one. They can subsidize campaign contributions, influence PBS, NPR, corporate media in ways that do encourage abortion while virtually never talking about down sides, the legality and politics of pro choice and more.
Kind of off topic but you might be interested. There was a case where a young girl likely murdered her new born that she bore in private. I think this girl internalized the messages she was receiving throughout our culture (and from her own mom) telling her having a baby was the end of her life.

 

I already address the "Spirit or the Law" argument in post #86 and #89. You should read those but the overview is we can probably both agree that the "spirit of the law" is to lower the number of cars on the road to lower congestion, lower pollution, reduce gas consumption or what other similar agenda. In the spirit of the law what is the real difference between a 8 month pregnant woman with a fetus and a new born? It is not like the new born would be driving themselves if they were not car pooling in the car seat?

I brought up that very point in post #25. The same will apply for things like movie theaters and even buffets. Imagine the viral video of some crazy nut screaming at some pregnant women in a buffet saying she should be paying for her unborn child too. Luckily these should not be a problem because private business like airlines and restaurants can easily change their rules. It is much harder to change the laws when as you say so many others people like toddlers, disabled, or people that have no DLs would not help in the "spirit of the law".

 

Your argument is based on a movie? F’ing hell.

 

As I said, your argument is with Merriam-Webster and not with me.

As far as your preference for the "choice" term, I understand that desire because it aligns with the marketing that the left has done on the subject. "Choice" is a marketing slogan, and you certainly can choose your preferred means of conveying the same idea. It sounds much better to be pro choice rather than pro abortion, but they do in fact mean the exact same thing.

This subject has never actually been about "choice". It is about whether or not it has been determined as to when life begins. If it were ever determined that life begins at conception ( not a position I support), that life would then supersede the right to choice of the mother. There is no potential crime that has ever been determined by the "choice" of the potential assailant, if anything, it is determined by the existence of a victim of the act in question.

I happen to not believe that it has been adequately determined that life begins at conception which means there is not a victim, thus I support abortion as an option, at least until some point much later in the pregnancy. To pretend however that this determination has anything to do with choice is off base to say the least. There are an awful lot of women that are anti-abortion, and they most certainly do not hold that position because they want to limit the choice of women. They hold that position because they legitimately feel that life begins at some point prior to when they support the legal ability to abort it.

 

Well your argument is with the legal definition. Although IMO the 2 definitions have been perverted by political influences, they are not one and the same and never have been prior to these influences.

Pro-Choice Law and Legal Definition

Pro-choice is a term used for those who support a woman's right to choose abortion if she so wishes. Supporters of the pro-choice agenda do not necessarily support abortion itself, only the position that women are entitled to make the decision themselves.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pro-choice/

 

I have long since made my point, and see no reason to continue discussing the subject ad infinitum.

 

Whether that's true or not there is an agenda to expand it to many other personal choices. Once these constitutional criminals open the door they are in fact opening the proverbial pandora's box and NO rights are going to be protected any longer. Where do you think this is going to lead to thanks to anti-freedom of choice cheerleaders?

 

Constitutional criminals? Who is that exactly?

While I support abortion being legal, in no way do I think that Roe V Wade ever made any sense from a legal perspective. It always should have been decided by the legislature. The whole right to privacy logic was always nonsensical as a justification and was a sitting duck for being overturned.

 

I understand. It's obviously because I found a definition you don't like that is in full agreement with my position despite your insistence that my position is not valid and only yours is valid.

 

No, its just that my point all along has been about the Merriam-Webster definition and that your argument was with them rather than me, and it has long since been made. If you had said that you could find alternative wording I would not have argued because OF COURSE YOU CAN. I could further argue ( and in fact already have) that they all still mean the same thing no matter the wording, but what would be accomplished by repeating it again?

The topic is played out. It is time to move on. I said so while not furthering my point and was happy to let your alternative definition be the last word on the subject. There needs to be a way to gracefully end a conversation that does not result in a never-ending string of repetitive posts with slightly different wording.

 

All government servants who violate or attempt to violate the constitutionally protected right to bodily autonomy.

I agree that Roe v Wade never made any sense but for the complete opposite reason. The right to bodily autonomy was always protected by the 9th Amendment. Any legislation abrogating that right was and is always and always will be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should have affirmed that 9-0 in explicit terms and not just by the 14th Amendment.

 

Except I was having a discussion with YOU and not with Merriam-Webster. But it's quite ok, like I said I understand

 

I doubt this situation will destroy hov lanes. You are assuming women will misuse the law. I'm all for little shaming those that do. Women with a child I a car seat and women alone ought to be stopped.

 

That makes perfect sense, being that I more than made MY point.

 

Not according to the cop that pulled her over and gave a statement you provided in your OP. He said, the seat have to be occupied by a person not in the womb.

 

Cops say a lot of things. You believe everything a cop tells you?