Dirty_but_Dazzling Posted July 10, 2022 Report Share Posted July 10, 2022 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Wildcats Posted July 10, 2022 Report Share Posted July 10, 2022 She must be a Republican. A Dem couldn’t make that argument since, they don’t consider a baby in the womb a living thing! 5GallonBucket 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Separation Scientist Posted July 10, 2022 Report Share Posted July 10, 2022 Since the debate could continue endlessly, we have to look to a much higher source for a definition: This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5GallonBucket Posted July 10, 2022 Report Share Posted July 10, 2022 Man made laws if both woman and unborn baby are murdered it’s a double homicide so according to that the baby is a second person her ticket should be dismissed Big girl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baddog Posted July 10, 2022 Report Share Posted July 10, 2022 I agree that the baby is a second person. The HOV lane was created so people would carpool, thus easing traffic a tad by taking cars off the road. Although her unborn child fulfills the minimum requirement of traveling in the HOV lane, it does nothing to ease traffic. Kinda like the guy who drives with a blowup doll for the same reason. Give her a warning and tell her not to do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashMouth Posted July 11, 2022 Report Share Posted July 11, 2022 While I agree the baby is a human life, the lady knew better. Give her the ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted July 11, 2022 Report Share Posted July 11, 2022 23 minutes ago, SmashMouth said: While I agree the baby is a human life, the lady knew better. Give her the ticket. A better idea is just make the HOV lane another regular lane. baddog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashMouth Posted July 11, 2022 Report Share Posted July 11, 2022 1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said: A better idea is just make the HOV lane another regular lane. I don’t disagree. Give her the ticket, then make it a regular lane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baddog Posted July 11, 2022 Report Share Posted July 11, 2022 Even though she was fudging the law, I believe in warnings. Hey, that’s just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted July 12, 2022 Report Share Posted July 12, 2022 Many or perhaps most of the appeals cases that I have read ask what was the intent of the law. Even for Constitutional rights, the question always comes up, what did the right intend to mean? The HOV lane is intended to cut down on traffic. Rather than five people taking five different cars to shop, go to an event, coworkers carpooling to work, etc., two could go in one car and three could go in the other. That move has now reduced their potential traffic by more than 50%, from 5 cars to 2. There is no ambiguity in the intent of that law. By being pregnant, how many cars did the woman reduce the traffic by? Clearly she should be guilty of the charge. The argument whether it’s another person is ridiculous because even if everyone conceded that, the baby will not be driving for several more years. Whether you don’t like the HOV lane, whether you think she should get a warning, whether she should get community service, defensive driving, etc., she should not get a pass for pregnancy. A judge is certainly within his authority to dismiss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.