This is clearly a case of where one must look at the intent of the legislation. She clearly was not carpooling here regardless of the "life" status of her fetus.
I understand that, but the statute governing the carpool lane had a specific intent when written. In this case, it is the intent of the statute that should determine the outcome. Political theater shouldn't trump common sense in our legal system.
Unfortunately the law is precise. If it says two or more people, and a fetus is a person then a pregnant woman is one person and the fetus is another person.
A fetish is define as a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc. Or an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
So do you view fetuses as an object or an inanimate object?
I view them as a human in the very early stages of development. I've seen girls holding signs showing late term babies dismembered saying how they love doing it, also seen narcissistic tendencies over represented among women who've had abortions.
They've gone so far that they're celebrating abortions online as if it's an accomplishment and some openly saying they get sexual gratification from getting abortions. I'm guessing you're one of those people
Why not? The law is the law, and Texas state law recognizes a fetus as an individual, if they are going to do that then all of their laws should reflect that stance.
I think she's making a point. A very necessary one. Next step would be a woman saying she had sex yesterday, so prove that there isn't another person in this car! Can you be convicted of a crime that there's only a probability that it was a crime, not a certainty? Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
If Texas law states life begins at conception they must allow a pregnant woman to drive in the HOV lane. They can't have it both ways. When a pregnant woman goes to a movie she must pay for two tickets.
Hmm slightly hypocritical given you thought me getting cuffed and gagged so okay for also not breaking any law! No doubled find $215 for breaking the law.
If you had treated me the way you treated that waitress I would have pressed charges against you and prosecuted you to the full extent of the law and hopefully the judge would throw in some mandatory anger management classes too
A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. You acted illegally and violently and were detained until law enforcement arrived.
No you are wrong, I was allowed to leave the establishment I didn't need to be "detained" it was ridiculous! Then to put a piece of white duct tape on my mouth so I coudnt even make my point is just obsurd over a bill for a few drinks and a little food
Thank your for reiterating what I just said. According to the Texas penal code, and “individual” means a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth. According to that definition a fetus should be recognized as an individual under Texas transportation code as well and if not there should be a clear distinction which there is not. So legally, as the law is written, she did not violate any traffic law.
I think every law should have a valid purpose or it is worse than pointless.
Laws against abortion are meant to protect against killing human lives for the purpose of birth control.
HOV laws are meant to reduce the number of cars on the highway by getting two or more drivers in the same vehicle. I don't know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods fetuses don't drive.
Come on, girl... women like you make all of us look bad.
I understand the point she is trying to make, but it's obviously an absurd argument that will get thrown out and the whole thing only does more to undermine respect for women and mothers.
The only issue with any of this story if that Texas law was not specific enough about what a "person" means.
For the purposes of abortion laws it should means a human life that should be protected.
For the purposes of HOV laws it should mean someone who has a driver license.
I'm sure the Texes legislature will correct the problem with the language in the HOV law, but that's all that is going to happen here (aside from Brandy Battone making a joke of herself). Wouldn't you agree?
Actually it’s very specific. According to the Texas penal code, and “individual” means a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth,
No, your point is that you have a problem with a fetus being considered a life in the context of abortion rights, but not in the context of HOV laws. Your argument here is absurd to anyone with an IQ of more than 50.
Let's play your childish little game a little more, shall we?
If someone other than the mother does something that results in the death of a fetus in utero, it is considered murder according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. In many states today it is legal for a mother carrying the very same fetus to kill her child.
Okay then, I'll ask you again... in your opinion, which of the two laws I mentioned should be changed to make them consistent? Should abortion be legally considered murder? Or, should the Unborn Victims of Violence Act be repealed? Considering your claim that laws should always be consistent, you obviously have a strong opinion on this one, so I'm very interested in your thoughts. Please do share them.
I don’t know enough about either law to give an informed opinion. How ever I believe state laws should be consistent regardless of my political stance on womens health.
I see you're struggling with this so I'm going to distil it down and make it super simple so even you can understand and express your opinion on it.
In California it is legal for a woman to kill her child in utero. But if someone else does something to kill the very same child in her, it is murder. Those two laws are very inconsistent, wouldn't you say? So, which one should change, in your opinion? No cop outs this time.
I can see that you are unfamiliar with intent and consent. For reference this post is referring to state laws in Texas. I know that it can be difficult to remain logical when an emotional topic is brought up but I appreciate your effort.
Your hypocrisy is making a fuss about laws being consistent to support your agenda but then being too cowardly to acknowledge that you don't think two other laws should also be consistent when it doesn't support your agenda.
Both of the laws I mentioned are the rule of law in California. So now that I've cleared that up for you, please tell me which one you think should be changed.
I'm not talking about California state law, I am talking about two individual laws in Texas. How ever you are more than welcome to post your own question in regards to inconsistent state laws in California.
Ah, I see. You are so passionately against inconsistent laws that you felt the need to write about it on a public internet forum. But only in Texas... laws MUST be consistent in Texas, but consistency in other states is inconsequential. My, my, aren't you the principled one. Lol
Here's the truth. You got called out on your dishonesty and you've tried everything you can to deflect from the fact that your are completely full of shit and now you're at the bottom of the barrel with nowhere to go.
I'll admit I've enjoyed watching you squirm, but I'm going to let you off the hook now so you can crawl out of that barrel and dust yourself off.
That would entails some pretty late term abortions that are too brutal for my tastes. How would you like to be cut up in the womb when you can feel pain? If I'm going to be aborted at least do it before I develop a brain stem.
@Juxtapose Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus. Fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational age. According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness, they write (JAMA 2005; 294:947-954).
and you will be pulled over and given a ticket, up to you... a pregnant woman, is a woman 1 Person.. and any woman could claim to be pregnant and use the HOV lane...
we should do pelvic exams on the side of the road, just have her climb up on the hood and spread her legs, it might cause traffic problems, but you can't tell if a woamn is pregnant or just fat, so you would need to verify... a new meaning to "Drop and Spread em'... "
sorry.. a "baby bump or a big lunch" look the same... if a fetus is a person, then women are murdering millions of people every year, you can't have it both ways... stay out of the HOV lane if you are alone in the car
Well, if people want to give full blown human rights to those who live within the bodies of others, then they should get all the rights that go along with it. They are either fully separate entities, or they are not. This may seem like a silly avenue, but it does ask a legitimate question.
@UCrayCray should the Highway Patrol start giving pelvic exams to confirm pregnancy? maybe she is just a fat slob cheating and using the HOV lane... I do NOT want to see cars on the side of the road with women laid out on the Hood of the car with thier legs up in stirrups, Well it migh be amusing...
@Waldoe Texan laws should be consistent, if they want to recognize a fetus as an individual from conception then it should be consistent. And pregnancy can’t just be verified by just a pelvic exam….
@Waldoe Yes, well, I’m sure it would be amusing to one who would never find themselves laid out on the hood of the car with their legs up in stirrups. However, we do need to find a rectify the situation. Is a pregnant woman one person, or two?
Then they should do so consistently and all get on the same page about which laws the pass…. It shouldn’t be that difficult… yet you still struggle with it
According to the Texas penal code, and “individual” means a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth, but under the Texas Transportation Code, there’s nothing that indicates a fetus doesn’t count as a passenger in a vehicle. So unless it does she hasn’t violated any Texan law.
@goaded according to Texas Transport Code there are exemptions for safety restraints, one of which being is that adult passengers seated in the rear are not required to wear seatbelts if there are none or if all seatbelt are already being used
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
53Opinion
This is clearly a case of where one must look at the intent of the legislation. She clearly was not carpooling here regardless of the "life" status of her fetus.
But according to Texas, life starts at conception and that life is considered an individual.
I understand that, but the statute governing the carpool lane had a specific intent when written. In this case, it is the intent of the statute that should determine the outcome. Political theater shouldn't trump common sense in our legal system.
It counts if the baby has been born and the laws in Texas do not dictate that it doesn’t count if it hasn’t been born yet
Unfortunately the law is precise. If it says two or more people, and a fetus is a person then a pregnant woman is one person and the fetus is another person.
Just admit you have a fetish for dismemberment babies like every single woman who gets an abortion does
A fetish is define as a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.
Or
an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
So do you view fetuses as an object or an inanimate object?
I view them as a human in the very early stages of development. I've seen girls holding signs showing late term babies dismembered saying how they love doing it, also seen narcissistic tendencies over represented among women who've had abortions.
They've gone so far that they're celebrating abortions online as if it's an accomplishment and some openly saying they get sexual gratification from getting abortions. I'm guessing you're one of those people
As does Texas state law, according to their penal code a fetus is defined as an individual from the moment of conception.
She apparently has a legal point but morally she can't really think this is appropriate.
Why not? The law is the law, and Texas state law recognizes a fetus as an individual, if they are going to do that then all of their laws should reflect that stance.
I think she's making a point. A very necessary one. Next step would be a woman saying she had sex yesterday, so prove that there isn't another person in this car! Can you be convicted of a crime that there's only a probability that it was a crime, not a certainty? Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
If Texas law states life begins at conception they must allow a pregnant woman to drive in the HOV lane. They can't have it both ways. When a pregnant woman goes to a movie she must pay for two tickets.
Since life begins at conception and you can't abort a life, her unborn baby is a human. Humans are called occupants. That ticket should be thrown out
🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This is about all a Subaru cam muster on a Road Course….
🙉 🙈 🙊
she's being out right scrupulous, a complete waste of the authorties time. Id of given her a mouthful let a lone a fine!
Why? As the law is written she didn’t brake any law.
Hmm slightly hypocritical given you thought me getting cuffed and gagged so okay for also not breaking any law! No doubled find $215 for breaking the law.
I never said it was okay, I said you had it coming for assaulting your waitress, and you’re lucky it was me
Haahhah why what would you do? I coudnt even talk
by the way didn't mean that in a rude way was just amused and curious lmao.
If you had treated me the way you treated that waitress I would have pressed charges against you and prosecuted you to the full extent of the law and hopefully the judge would throw in some mandatory anger management classes too
I got a telling off and a lift home. Hardly crime of the year was it.
Also the "waitress" indirectly got me bound and gagged
Well if it were me I would’ve charged you for battery and or assault. You’re lucky all you gotta slap on the wrist
I dont see how me throwing a drink and getting pushed in return warrants me being the one who warrants getting gagged LITERALLY and retrained.
It literally doesn't matter , ignorance of the law is no excuse
Your words "citzens" arrest what part of that was a citizens arrest? Its not being ignorant either.
A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. You acted illegally and violently and were detained until law enforcement arrived.
That isn't "detaining" someone.
Detain is defined as to keep (someone) from proceeding; hold back….. so yes, it was
No you are wrong, I was allowed to leave the establishment I didn't need to be "detained" it was ridiculous! Then to put a piece of white duct tape on my mouth so I coudnt even make my point is just obsurd over a bill for a few drinks and a little food
You were detained for assaulting a waitress...
Gattai
Thank your for reiterating what I just said. According to the Texas penal code, and “individual” means a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth. According to that definition a fetus should be recognized as an individual under Texas transportation code as well and if not there should be a clear distinction which there is not. So legally, as the law is written, she did not violate any traffic law.
Why do feminists use arguments like this and ever expect t be taken seriously?
You don’t think that laws should be consistent?
I think every law should have a valid purpose or it is worse than pointless.
Laws against abortion are meant to protect against killing human lives for the purpose of birth control.
HOV laws are meant to reduce the number of cars on the highway by getting two or more drivers in the same vehicle. I don't know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods fetuses don't drive.
Come on, girl... women like you make all of us look bad.
Neither do infants but they count in HOV lanes in Texas.
And you're saying they should?
No I am saying that in Texas infants and children count as passengers and having one in the vehicle qualifies the driver to use the HOV lane.
What is your point?
That she didn’t break any law… and that laws and the enforcement of laws should be consistent… wouldn’t you agree?
I understand the point she is trying to make, but it's obviously an absurd argument that will get thrown out and the whole thing only does more to undermine respect for women and mothers.
Why? The Texas government wants to treat a fetus as an individual with the same rights as an infant. The law should be consistent wouldn’t you agree?
The only issue with any of this story if that Texas law was not specific enough about what a "person" means.
For the purposes of abortion laws it should means a human life that should be protected.
For the purposes of HOV laws it should mean someone who has a driver license.
I'm sure the Texes legislature will correct the problem with the language in the HOV law, but that's all that is going to happen here (aside from Brandy Battone making a joke of herself). Wouldn't you agree?
Actually it’s very specific.
According to the Texas penal code, and “individual” means a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth,
Completely beside the point here, but thanks.
Actually that is the whole point.
No, your point is that you have a problem with a fetus being considered a life in the context of abortion rights, but not in the context of HOV laws. Your argument here is absurd to anyone with an IQ of more than 50.
Actually no…. The point is that the law should be consistent
Let's play your childish little game a little more, shall we?
If someone other than the mother does something that results in the death of a fetus in utero, it is considered murder according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. In many states today it is legal for a mother carrying the very same fetus to kill her child.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
Very inconsistent, wouldn't you say?
According to your "reasoning", which law should change?
Like I said, state laws should be consistent
Okay then, I'll ask you again... in your opinion, which of the two laws I mentioned should be changed to make them consistent? Should abortion be legally considered murder? Or, should the Unborn Victims of Violence Act be repealed? Considering your claim that laws should always be consistent, you obviously have a strong opinion on this one, so I'm very interested in your thoughts. Please do share them.
I don’t know enough about either law to give an informed opinion. How ever I believe state laws should be consistent regardless of my political stance on womens health.
I see you're struggling with this so I'm going to distil it down and make it super simple so even you can understand and express your opinion on it.
In California it is legal for a woman to kill her child in utero. But if someone else does something to kill the very same child in her, it is murder. Those two laws are very inconsistent, wouldn't you say? So, which one should change, in your opinion? No cop outs this time.
I can see that you are unfamiliar with intent and consent. For reference this post is referring to state laws in Texas. I know that it can be difficult to remain logical when an emotional topic is brought up but I appreciate your effort.
I can see you're not going to answer the question, no doubt because it underscores your hypocrisy on this issue. No surprise.
How is saying that laws should be consistent hypocrisy?…
Your hypocrisy is making a fuss about laws being consistent to support your agenda but then being too cowardly to acknowledge that you don't think two other laws should also be consistent when it doesn't support your agenda.
I think that all state laws should be consistent… apparently that wasn’t clear enough. I’m glad I was able to clear that up for you.
Both of the laws I mentioned are the rule of law in California. So now that I've cleared that up for you, please tell me which one you think should be changed.
I'm not talking about California state law, I am talking about two individual laws in Texas. How ever you are more than welcome to post your own question in regards to inconsistent state laws in California.
Ah, I see. You are so passionately against inconsistent laws that you felt the need to write about it on a public internet forum. But only in Texas... laws MUST be consistent in Texas, but consistency in other states is inconsequential. My, my, aren't you the principled one. Lol
Here's the truth. You got called out on your dishonesty and you've tried everything you can to deflect from the fact that your are completely full of shit and now you're at the bottom of the barrel with nowhere to go.
I'll admit I've enjoyed watching you squirm, but I'm going to let you off the hook now so you can crawl out of that barrel and dust yourself off.
Bye now
Lol no honey, I am just refusing to play your games. Bye bye 👋
No, it doesn't. And this stupid abortion banning bs is yet another reason why I'm ashamed to call myself American.
Legally it does, Texas state penal code says so.
Texas is filled with crazy people.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that
No it doesn't!
https://youtu.be/y2TFCsCvXRoThis guy has a PhD in biology and he knows what he is talking about. There is no consensus among the scientific community about when life begins.
Yes I am aware but Texas law doesn’t follow science it follows religion
Life should begin when brainwaves start right?
@Juxtapose life should start when an organism is capable of sustaining its own life autonomously
That would entails some pretty late term abortions that are too brutal for my tastes. How would you like to be cut up in the womb when you can feel pain? If I'm going to be aborted at least do it before I develop a brain stem.
@Juxtapose Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus. Fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational age.
According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness, they write (JAMA 2005; 294:947-954).
Oh good job, proved your point nicely. Then your standard seems reasonable enough.
Too bad hardcore right wingers don't see it the same way.
HOV means High occupancy vehicle, everyone wears a seat-belt, 1 person per seat... all women would use the HOV lane and claim to be pregnant
The law states 2 or more persons.. and Texas state law dictates a fetus is a person.
and you will be pulled over and given a ticket, up to you... a pregnant woman, is a woman 1 Person.. and any woman could claim to be pregnant and use the HOV lane...
Not according to Texas state law
we should do pelvic exams on the side of the road, just have her climb up on the hood and spread her legs, it might cause traffic problems, but you can't tell if a woamn is pregnant or just fat, so you would need to verify... a new meaning to "Drop and Spread em'... "
… you do realize that a pelvic exam alone can’t verify pregnancy right?….
sorry.. a "baby bump or a big lunch" look the same... if a fetus is a person, then women are murdering millions of people every year, you can't have it both ways... stay out of the HOV lane if you are alone in the car
According to Texas state law a fetus is considered an individual, and there is nothing in Texan state laws the preclude fetuses as a passenger.
Life has begun before conception. Sperm is alive.
I'm not saying woman shouldn't be allowed to abort, but they are killing a fetus when they do so.
"Welcome to Texas"... the state motto being: "Nobody ever said we were smart"
It seems the law's gonna be actualised as they didn't forecast such case. Life brings the best answers :)
anyone that wants to kill babies needs to move a socialist anti Christ state
Are you referring to infants or fetuses?
That woman is a idiot. She should know better than wasting people's time.
Is it a waste of time though? We really should have some clarity on this issue. Is a pregnant woman one person, or two?
@UCrayCray: She's clearly one person that's carrying a life within her not yet born.
Carpooling is meant to reduce road congestion and pollution. She just wants to be slick and waste people's time with BS.
Well, if people want to give full blown human rights to those who live within the bodies of others, then they should get all the rights that go along with it. They are either fully separate entities, or they are not.
This may seem like a silly avenue, but it does ask a legitimate question.
I thought you were pro life …
Really? Do you know where you got that idea? I think my posts have always been clearly pro-choice, but I could be wrong about that.
@UCrayCray no you lol Hispanic dude over here is
@Subarugirl
I hate this format 😠
@UCrayCray yeah me to lol
@UCrayCray should the Highway Patrol start giving pelvic exams to confirm pregnancy? maybe she is just a fat slob cheating and using the HOV lane... I do NOT want to see cars on the side of the road with women laid out on the Hood of the car with thier legs up in stirrups, Well it migh be amusing...
@Waldoe Texan laws should be consistent, if they want to recognize a fetus as an individual from conception then it should be consistent. And pregnancy can’t just be verified by just a pelvic exam….
@Waldoe
Yes, well, I’m sure it would be amusing to one who would never find themselves laid out on the hood of the car with their legs up in stirrups.
However, we do need to find a rectify the situation.
Is a pregnant woman one person, or two?
to find a….. way to….. rectify
😡😡
@UCrayCray Lol the guy really thinks that pregnancies are verified through pelvic exams LMAO
@UCrayCray well if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with a double homicide.
@Twalli you COULD be… it’s not a guarantee
men decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body in the 21c
Apparently the can’t decide….
men make the laws
Then they should do so consistently and all get on the same page about which laws the pass…. It shouldn’t be that difficult… yet you still struggle with it
@that only holds true in 3rd world countries or those that have not quite reached 21st century, some are slow it’s still only 2022.
the US is dominated by extreme right wing religious tossers
@lpoots
Corrected it for you
the US is dominated by extreme tossers
@ChrisMaster69
you forgot the religious
Loop hole. I call it bull shit. Let’s be serious here there needs to be a physical person in another seat.
Then why doesn’t the law say that?
Don’t know own. I don’t write the laws
According to the Texas penal code, and “individual” means a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth, but under the Texas Transportation Code, there’s nothing that indicates a fetus doesn’t count as a passenger in a vehicle. So unless it does she hasn’t violated any Texan law.
Does the code have anything about 12 people in a 6-seater vehicle? :)
@goaded according to Texas Transport Code there are exemptions for safety restraints, one of which being is that adult passengers seated in the rear are not required to wear seatbelts if there are none or if all seatbelt are already being used
Laws are so crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
Your right we should get rid of HOV lanes and just make them another lane of traffic.