Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
She claims her unborn baby of 34 weeks is a person / passenger. Thoughts ??? Comments ??? God Bless !!!  "Always legally conceal carry. At the right place and time, one person can make a positive difference." | ||
|
Still finding my way |
Thoughts? I think she's a moron like those sovereign citizens that like to get tazed claiming their sovereignty. I feel bad for her unfortunate progeny. | |||
|
| Conservative in Nor Cal constantly swimming up stream  |
Shut up and pay the ticket… ----------------------------------- Get your guns b4 the Dems take them away Sig P-229 Sig P-220 Combat | |||
|
Fire begets Fire |
Don’t pay the ticket; pay the attorney. "Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty." ~Robert A. Heinlein | |||
|
safe & sound |
I'll be the contrarian. She may very well have a valid case and it will hinge upon how the laws are written (or more importantly how they are not). I believe in fewer rules, fewer laws, and constantly challenging both. The only thing I was able to quickly find was on the Texas DOT website which states that the HOV lanes can be used by a vehicle "occupied by two or more people". Have they defined what "people" are? If not, then it's ambiguous and can be decided by a judge. The story says that the police officer insisted that a "person" must be "outside of the body". Great! Show us where the law says that. Some of these people may be morons, but so are some of the people which constantly lay layer upon layer upon layer of governance upon us. Sometimes we need the first to rid us of the second. | |||
|
אַרְיֵה |
If a 34 week fetus is a living being (I'm not going to get into that discussion one way or the other), she has a logical argument. But, as I told my wife the other day while we were discussing a totally different topic, "You are speaking logically. Logical and legal are not necessarily the same." הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
Member |
I'm with a1abdj on this one. I don't know if Texas is on board, but several state legislatures are considering or have passed extraordinarily broad "fetal personhood" laws, and Republicans in Congress are reportedly thinking about it, too. Everybody's patting themselves on the back for finding another way to fight abortion, but god damn. If a fetus is a person, how does a fetus NOT count for an HOV lane? Or for tax deductions? Or for anything else? The fetal personhood laws don't say they don't, and the laws for the HOV lane and tax deductions don't. If the government is going to pass stupid laws with no thought to the broader implications, then anyone with the opportunity should use the stupid laws to fuck the government sideways. | |||
|
| Leatherneck |
If she murdered another pregnant woman and her unborn baby could she be charged with two homicides? If so then I’d say she should be able to use the HOV lane. Though she’s an asshole for doing so. “Everybody wants a Sig in the sheets but a Glock on the streets.” -bionic218 04-02-2014 | |||
|
| Member |
There was another one not too long ago about a guy driving a hearse with a dead body in the back. I think he has a better case than the pregnant lady. | |||
|
Member |
Without burrowing too far down the "when does life begin?" rabbit hole, I suspect most reasonable persons would agree the HOV requirements were intended to address passengers who occupy a seat within the vehicle. | |||
|
Oriental Redneck |
Moron just doing shit to get her 15 seconds. That's my thought. Q | |||
|
| Member |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Correct. | |||
|
Frangas non Flectes |
I’ll bet she was doing ten under the speed limit when she got pulled over. ______________________________________________ Carthago delenda est | |||
|
Member |
The intent of a HOV lane is to reduce the amount of cars on the road by ridesharing. So if you carpool then you get HOV lane benefit. I know families and other groups may already have intended to use one vehicle and get the HOV lane benefit, such as an adult with one or more non drivers. But, this circumstance stretches the the intent logic. Thanks, KPSquared | |||
|
A Grateful American |
Agree with hjs157. The intention of the HOV regulation is for separate occupants. Some things should not require more than passing glance to understand. Once we start "playing chess", it becomes akin to trying to locate the beginning or end of a fractal pattern. Heck, if she insisted the baby was a "passenger", and I were a cop, I'm gonna issue a citation for the baby not being in a proper (legal definition) baby seat. Yeah, gonna be tossed out, but if you want to play that game, I got time. "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
Member |
This came up om the radio the other morning on my commute. IIRC, they said that TX law defines the baby (born or unborn) as 'a person' and therefore the 2+ occupants requirement for the HOV was satisfied. Agree with others, depends on how a few laws/requirements are written to know if it was technically legal. The Enemy's gate is down. | |||
|
Caribou gorn |
Tear up her ticket then get the legislature to reword the HOV law. I always wondered why you could abort a "baby" but it wasn't a person yet, but if you killed a pregnant mother you could get two counts of murder. We need consistency in our definitions and then we can write laws precisely to keep the idiots at bay. I'm gonna vote for the funniest frog with the loudest croak on the highest log. | |||
|
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
This pro-abortionist bitch is trying to make a point. Screw her. Pay the ticket. Having said that, Abolish HOV lanes. ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Yeah, but what if she had twins? The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Shit don't mean shit |
At first blush I thought she was an idiot for such ridiculous reasoning. However, the more I thought about it, the more I tended to agree with her. If the unborn are truly "a person", then why not? I don't think you can have it both ways. Life beings at conception, right? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024