In Texas life begins at conception right?

[Subarugirl]

Well sure.. unless you are driving in the HOV lane (high occupancy vehicle lane). Brandy Battone found herself getting pulled over while driving in a highway in Dallas and was issued a situation for driving in a HOV lane, which is the carpool lane that requires drivers to have two or more people in a car. The officer noticed Battone appeared to be the only person in her vehicle but she insisted she wasn’t alone. She reminded the officer of the recent Supreme Court ruling saying “ in light of everything that has happened, and I’m not trying to make a huge political stance here, but you do understand that this is a baby?”.

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 counts as a passenger in a vehicle.
Battone says she doesn’t think that she should have gotten the ticket at all and wants Texas laws to be consistent in wether they do or do not recognize a fetus as a person. Battone told NBC news that she’ll be fighting the reported $215 ticket at her July 20th hearing, which is just a couple weeks before her due date.

[Bluemax]

I for one have always believed that HOV lanes should only take into account people who are of driving age, since having a child passenger in the HOV lane does not reduce traffic in the slightest. by the way, here in California, surveys have shown HOV lanes don't reduce traffic, and may in fact contribute to it.

That being said, let's not pretend that hypocrisy doesn't exist on *all* sides of the debate, including ours (assuming you are pro-choice like myself). In my opinion, some of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard come from my own side.

[SaoirseS]

What a ridiculous idea. There’s no person visible in the car besides her, so yes it’s an HOV lane violation. She needs to apply some sense here, not try to make a ridiculous statement. Spiritually life May begin at conception, but try claiming a fetus as a deduction - government says you can’t do it because it’s not a person. You can’t buy life insurance on a fetus, because you can’t insure a life that does not yet exist per the insurance industry. That means Texas too.


If the complaint is that Texas recognizes life beginning at conception and is being inconsistent, then the fix would be to lightly amend the law. But be careful what you ask for. Consistent application would also mean visibly pregnant women would have to pay for two instead of one concert and movie tickets, and two admission prices to museums, etc.

[Subarugirl]

Texas laws recognize a fetus as an individual person

[SaoirseS]

It doesn’t matter, it’s how governments and business apply it.

[Subarugirl]

You aren’t understanding, Texas law.. the Texan government recognizes a fetus as an individual person. So their laws should be consistent and under the Texas Transportation Code, there’s nothing that indicates a fetus doesn’t count as a passenger in a vehicle.

[SaoirseS]

Oh I full well know what the law says and why it says it. But in her case a fetus does not occupy a seat and isn’t going to count as a passenger, but that’s up to the judge if she contests it.

With laws like this, governments and businesses will interpret them to mean whatever makes the most sense. It can say whatever it wants regarding a fetus being an individual person. But when it comes down to it, a Texas funeral director cannot charge twice for burial or cremation of a pregnant woman because it’s “two people.” It just doesn’t work that way. Government and business will apply it to their advantage when it suits them, and disregard it when it doesn’t.

[Subarugirl]

According to what law does it not count?

[Subarugirl]

And yes… a funeral director could, and it would be protected understate law.

[SaoirseS]

No, a funeral director may not. Not even in Texas. In this lady’s case, a judge can rule on it. I don’t expect it to be in her favor.

[Subarugirl]

Is there a law that says they cannot?

[SaoirseS]

Yep. Both law and FTC funeral rules

[Subarugirl]

Which ones?

[SaoirseS]

The state’s mortuary laws and regulations regulate handling and disposal of remains, and the FTC Funeral Rule regulates the business practice.

[Subarugirl]

Yes you have already stated that. Texan state law says that it is. So which texan law states that a funeral director may not charge twice for burial or cremation of a pregnant woman because it’s two people?

[SaoirseS]

Are you a funeral director/death care provider?

[Subarugirl]

No I am not, but that's not the question. The question is which texan law states that a funeral director may not charge twice for burial or cremation of a pregnant woman because it’s two people?

[SaoirseS]

You can look up Title 3, Ch 651 if you want. But you're looking at this the wrong way. The law need not make an affirmative statement in a case like this. It's what the FTC Funeral Rule calls for that makes Texas and other state laws moot; specifically, a funeral director cannot require goods and services unless they are required by law, and Texas law does not make separating funeral arrangements a requirement. Over the past few years, Texas, Indiana, and a few others (including my neighboring state, where I do business) have passed laws requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains (including tissue from miscarriage and abortion), essentially creating laws that support its own narrative as to where life begins. In the case of a woman who dies while pregnant, it's up to the family as to how the remains are handled: buried or cremated as is, have the baby removed and placed in her arms, or have it removed and containered/disposed of separately. No state law in the nation requires any one option. Charges may apply for separate casketing, separate cremations, but that's the only time. And even though some states may rightly look at the unborn as life, no matter what stage of life one is in when one dies, remains become property of the next of kin and, albeit with some regulation, legally cease to exist.

[Subarugirl]

Then there you go... that answers the question. If the feus is separated from the corpse. So yes, they funeral director can charge for it.

[SaoirseS]

*If* the fetus is separated AND containered separately, the funeral home can charge for the merchandise, and can add a small surcharge as “other preparation of remains” (usually about $200). But it may not double the removal charge, double the basic charge for professional services, or double the charge for use of facilities unless they hold separate services.

[Subarugirl]

exactly...

[SaoirseS]

Situation dependent, and charges have to be reasonable and declared and agreed in in advance. But what no funeral home can do is double the charge for everything just because a woman is pregnant - it is not considered “two people.” We simply can’t hand a family a $20K bill for a $10K funeral simply because she died with a fetus in utero. One set of remains, one container, one cremation, one burial easement - unless the family wants the fetus taken and buried or cremated separately. And some do, until they see how much extra it will cost them.

[Subarugirl]

. exactly...

[joeldalton]

Don't confuse a liberal with logic.

[TenderFantasy]

Why do you say "a" HOV lane instead of "an" by the way? It really irks me when people's grammar are bad.

And the worst part is people don't care!

With that said, I heard of that story before. I don't know if she will win this or not, but I remember in the article, they said that it has to be BORN before it is counted as a person! Or be able to survive outside the womb to be considered a person!

[Subarugirl]

You’ll have to excuse the typo…

[TenderFantasy]

Okay fair enough :-) . Interesting question by the way.

[Twalli]

Well if the official term is high occupancy vehicle lane and we just abbreviated it to HOV, then using "a" would be correct.

[TenderFantasy]

@Twalli Really? ! It sounds strange and no offense, it sounds like someone who doesn't know how to speak well, someone illiterate or retarded! ... If you have a source for your claim, would you mind posting it? The English language is so strange. .. "Learnt" vs. "Learned" "Hurt" but there's not "Hurted"! ...

... Some people also say: "I'm an RN" and some say "I'm a RN"... I'd still prefer the first one. It just sounds/flows better!

People who usually speak badly are generally people from the hood or slang. Some people also speak so informally, they don't care how they come off online. It's a good thing they're not in a job interview or a Writing class! Yikes!

[Subarugirl]

Are you serious…. You don’t like the way it sounds so it must be wrong? Lol

[Twalli]

An is used when the next word begins with a vowel or vowel sound. There are some exceptions though.

[Subarugirl]

@Twalli Yes that is true

[TenderFantasy]

Lol "I have a apple" is considered bad grammar. I learned that in elementary school, so it's only NATURAL I thought the way with the other words like that! Also, ghetto people (black people) usually speak badly and with slang using ebonics. I should know, as I am almost in my 40's, so I know what has happend to education!

[Subarugirl]

You use an before using a noun that’s starts with a vowel, H is not a consonant. So the proper grammas would be a high occupancy vehicle, not an high occupancy vehicle.

[Subarugirl]

So you’re not only incorrect you're also racist….

[Subarugirl]

*H is not a vowel, it’s a consonant.

[TenderFantasy]

I am not RACIST! Please gurl. I even watch BET Martin show lol. So please think before you speak!

Also, would it kill you to be more matured and nicer? ? !

[TenderFantasy]

@Twalli Also. It's STRANGE how HOV can be applied when there is only TWO people in the car. That's weird. It should be more. Some rules are so strange. A lot of people take advantage and try to get away with it. I see it a lot on the road!

[TenderFantasy]

Also, I was just stating facts. It's a factual thing that A LOT of blacks do speak with illiterate tone. It doesn't cause me to hate them, it's just how they are, being from the South. When I state a FACT, I am not being racist! Stereotypes also exist for a reason. There's some TRUTH to them!

[Subarugirl]

“ Ghetto people (black people) usually speak badly”….. you don’t see anything wrong with that gross stereotype?

[ChrisMaster69]

I think it’s a good idea to challenge what they are trying as the status quo definition.

add in.

Applying for Insurance

Applying for child support as soon as confirmed pregnant, get those extra 9 months of cash.

If there are any Census type things going on.

The big one though is naming it, surely the Births, Deaths and Marriages needs over turned, it’s a baby, you cannot deny it’s right to a name.

while a lot sounds silly, it really will fuck up the entire system and result in some hypocritical decisions.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I read this story and thought it was great, but not because she's pregnant. She's probably going to get the ticket thrown out in Court anyway. In the New York City area, just about all of the HOV lanes are for 3 or more people and/or for anyone driving a hybrid or electric vehicle, regardless of occupancy. So because of this, and thanks to $11 and Amazon, I have the only Ford Edge Hybrid on Earth:

Traffic for me? No way! No traffic for me!

[Sixgunsound]

That’s amazing. Screw the system!!!

[Zeus_66]

If I was the police officer, not only would I have agreed with her logic, I would've then arrested her for endangerment of the child, as the baby was not properly restrained in a baby seat while being transported. Her reckless behavior of having two human beings in one seat at that rate of speed is certainly a cause for concern, per her own logic.

After the case was filed with CPS, would hope that until the baby was on it's own in the world, she'd stay locked up. CPS would then take the baby, and if she could then post bail, she could.

I would hope she never had a chance to see her baby again. After all, she "schooled" the system thanks to SCOTUS, right? Hahaha!

Yeah, she'll be paying that ticket for sure.

[Subarugirl]

She didn’t break any law…. So I seriously doubt it

[Zeus_66]

The cop just cited her for no reason? So what you're say is polices officers just wanting cruise around, looking to give tickets to people not breaking the law? She was driving in an HOV lane without two seats occupied, period. That's a traffic violation.

[Subarugirl]

As far as I know the law just says that there has to be another person in the car, and babies count as passengers.

[Zeus_66]

You can play this game if you'd like. I got it. You're upset over the federal government doing what you've been begging them to do for a long time; stay out of your uterus. And now you have the freedom to decide through law and not "legislation from the bench." I'm being serious here when I say I get it. I get that it ain't easy handling one's liberty.

In the end, common sense will prevail and she will pay her ticket.

[Exterminatore]

Clearly this is a silly attempt at using the letter of the law and arguing over semantics to make a political point.


Fine then. Let’s go with the letter of the law. She can use the carpool lane. She can also be charged 2 entrance fees for anything. Movies, museums, plane tickets, literally everything. Failure to pay twice when appropriate constitutes an attempt to defraud the establishment and will be subject to criminal prosecution.


So, if we’re going with the letter of the law here, we must be consistent and do it in all applicable situations.


This is a two way street.


Or we can just knock off the BS.

[Subarugirl]

Okay but museums, theaters, airline, hotels… etc don’t charge for children under the age of 2….

[Exterminatore]

Not necessarily.

[Subarugirl]

Name one that does… airlines don’t charge for children under the age of 3 unless they have their own seat…

[Exterminatore]

You might have me there. I actually can’t think of one.

[Subarugirl]

I know because I have a child and most places don’t charge admission fees or tickets for infants

[demonics]

Because they both occupy the same space in the vehicle. The original intent of the law was to cut down on the number of vehicles on the road to reduce pollution and traffic congestion, y'know a law cooked up by liberals back in the 80's. But you'd know that if you didn't copy paste some shit from CNN thinking this was a GOTCHA. (Gullible female voters strike again...) Go yell at blue states that retain the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, that is killing a pregnant woman counts as double murder, or getting an unsanctioned abortion. RELEASE those ex-boyfriends and husbands that didn't want to be fathers! No? Thats different?

[Subarugirl]

I didn’t copy and paste anything…. But hey feel free to prove me wrong. Why you getting so upset about how people want laws to be consistent. If Texan penal code recognizes a fetus as an individual then all Texas laws should be consistent

[demonics]

Because while looking up the initial purpose of a passenger lane what you said popped up verbatim from CNN. But go ahead ignore the law... narrative must persist! Even if its incorrect and makes us look dumb!

https://imgflip.com/i/6mpedk

[AviatorTom]

She's trying to make a point that will undoubtedly fail. Motor vehicle laws about HOV lanes obviously refer to two or more distinct individuals. There are many instances in law where the same term has different meanings, depending on where it's used, and this is one of those cases.

[Subarugirl]

This is referring to HOV laws in Dallas. In which case a driver is permitted to use an HOV lane if there are two or more persons or individuals in the vehicle.

[AviatorTom]

@Subarugirl I know what she's referring to. HOV implies two separate individuals and the police officer was correct in ticketing her for driving in the HOV lane without another person sitting in the car.

[Subarugirl]

Texas state laws dictate a fetus as separate individual.

[AviatorTom]

@Subarugirl If you look carefully at all the Texas laws, I think you'll find that not all of them define a fetus as a "separate individual". The recently-passed anti-abortion law may do that, but laws passed previously (ex: HOV driving law) doesn't say anything about a fetus being a "separate individual." When looking at laws, it's important to consider the situation when the law was passed; laws are not automatically changed because a totally different law is passed.

[Subarugirl]

It doesn’t preclude fetuses either…. The laws should be consistent.

[AviatorTom]

@Subarugirl Laws are rarely consistent... that's why there are so many lawyers making a lot of money 😏

[Subarugirl]

But they should be

[AviatorTom]

@Subarugirl You'd put a lot of lawyers out of business 😲

[Subarugirl]

… lawyers don’t pass laws… politicians do.

[AviatorTom]

@Subarugirl Study the list of Senators and Representatives. You'll find that most of them are either active, inactive or retired lawyers.

[Subarugirl]

MOST being the key word here… they don’t have to be.

[Steve7111]

I don’t really care whether she wins or loses the case, but it’s not some big “gotcha” moment for baby-killers. The law could be re-written to say two or more seats in a car must be occupied to qualify for the HOV lane, and that would square the circle.
If she wins and pregnant women get to use the HOV lane, that would be great too.
But it’s not going to result in unborn babies in Texas being declared not persons.

[Subarugirl]

…. then the law should be written to reflect the intent… wouldn’t you agree?

[Exterminatore]

@Subaru

I fully agree. We should also be completely consistent and expand this concept to all other areas of life.

Should she go to the movies, she can pay for 2 tickets. One for her, and one for her fetus…. cause life begins at conception. Failure to do so is petty larceny or defrauding and inkeeper depending on the penal code of the area. Pregnant women will be should be charged with a crime in such instances and prosecuted accordingly. Remember life begins at conception…just like this woman is keen to point out. The same with plane tickets, museums, theme parks and anywhere else entrance fees are paid.

Consistency. You want it. You got it. The law equally applied across the board.

You’ll have no argument against this right? Fair is fair.

[Subarugirl]

@Exterminatore you do realize that theaters do not charge for children under 2 right?….. same goes for planes, hotels, amusement parks and museums…..

[Exterminatore]

That’s not necessarily the case. Many do not, but not all.

Suppose all charged regardless of age. Would you be against extending the letter of the law into all areas to the detriment of pregnant women everywhere?

[Subarugirl]

@Exterminatore I think that the law should be and be enforced consistently. If they want to implement laws that will only affect people who are capable of getting pregnant then it needs to be consistent.

[Exterminatore]

there's just one little problem. Abortion laws DO NOT only affect people capable of getting pregnant. How many men support some girl getting getting an abortion that they were just stupid enough to knock up and now must pay 18 years of child support because they can’t.

How many women commit paternity fraud? How many lie about being on birth control or pop holes in condoms to get knocked up? How many force a guy to be a father against his will by deception? How many men would seek to not have some woman in their life…. forever because of stupidity?

This is my problem with feminism. It’s always from the view point of self pity and explaining how only women suffer. How women should get special privileges.

The bottom line is the carpool lane is to reward those not adding to traffic by having more than one person in a vehicle NOT to play semantics with and make a silly political argument.

[Subarugirl]

@Exterminatore those only apply to people capable of getting pregnant and only indirectly affect everyone one else. Paternity tests are cheep…. How ever the law is the law and should be applied and enforced consistently. Wouldn’t you agree?

[Exterminatore]

Still though, I stand against abortion in all cases where the mothers life is not in jeopardy. The bottom line is we all know how babies are made. If one doesn’t like condoms and that just cost him big time. Tough. If people are irresponsible with this, which is the vast, vast majority of abortions then I care not. Life need not be snuffed out for irresponsibly. We can all live with the consequences of our actions.

Not that’s it’s something I’m at all proud of, but I’ve had sex with roughly 300 women. Not once did I knock anyone up because I ensured it wouldn’t happen by making good choices and using self discipline.

I know self discipline is an arcane concept these days. None the less I can’t see why silly games need to be played to keep something legal like abortion, whose necessity almost always is the result of poor decisions and a lack of self control.

[Exterminatore]

Not in this matter I don’t. To me it’s simple. No, you can’t murder your unborn baby or use the carpool lane if your preggers. This is an argument over semantics while the intended purpose is wholly ignored.

My step son, when he was young, we told him he was not allowed to play in grandmas closet at her house. One time I found him half in the closet. I reminded him of the rule. He replied: “but I’m only half in, you said I couldn’t be all the way in.” This is what this woman is doing.

[Subarugirl]

@Exterminatore that’s besides the point, if Texas wants to recognize a fetus as an individual then Texas state laws should be constant in how that’s reflected in their laws. If state laws recognize a fetus as an individual person then the fetus should be treated as person for the sake of consistency. Wouldn’t you agree?

[Exterminatore]

I see your point, it’s not completely absurd, but this is simply “I’m only half in the closet” ala my son.

The abortion issue is not one of protecting mothers is one of protecting fetus.

I see this woman’s point as attempting to take advantage of a circumstance.

[Subarugirl]

@Exterminatore so should recognize a fetus as an individual or not because if they are going to make laws that define a fetus as a person than those laws should be consistent. Texas law vies a fetus and a newborn as essentially the same thing with the same rights... so it would make sense that should be consistent with Texas transportation laws and should be reflected in the way the laws are written.

[Chazmatazz269]

Ell oh ell! Nobody wants to actually refer to the law on this matter. The WHOLE point of HOV and carpool lanes is to reduce traffic. Until babies and children are able to drive and including them in the ride actually reduces the number of vehicles on the road, this “argument” is pure nonsense at best and most likely willful ignorance. Grow up.

[CrazyGirl2]

She makes a very good point! Now, while I would say she is trying to game the system, the “system” here is the state of texas, and they need to be consistent! If an unborn baby is a human being, then there were more than 2 human beings In that vehicle, thus the cop should never have given them that ticket! Good for her!

[BCA6010]

Easy solution: HOV lanes are abolished. This is a dumb story, and wasting police manpower over enforcing pointless HOV lanes isn't worth it.

This woman thinks she has a clever excuse, but if she or some lawyer are really dumb enough to push this, it would result in a lot of really bad, probably unintended consequences.

[MzAsh]

As it should. The Roe overturn has a long list of consequences coming.

[StevieNix]

The law needs to be rewritten. It should say:

"In order to drive in the car pool Lane you must have two or more people in the car. Everyone in the vehicle needs to have a valid driver's license in their possession. If not you get a $500 fine."

[TallAnon]

Sounds like people creating drama around symantics. Obviously it's meant for 2 or more people to encourage driving together with people that would otherwise take a separate vehicle. This does not fulfill this purpose.
The purpose of the rules are more important than its phrasing.

[NoUsernameSelected]

I don't care. Let pregnant women use the HOV lane.

Or rewrite it to make sense. A passenger in the HOV lane needs to have a driver license as well, the law doesn't make sense otherwise. The idea is to reduce traffic, and taking someone without dl is not reducing traffic since they would have used public transport otherwise, not their car.

[BarryLiverstone]

“In general, pregnancy is not a valid reason to drive in the carpool lane from a legal perspective. That is because a passenger is generally defined as an individual who occupies a separate seat to the driver. Another problem is that if a foetus is defined as a person, then you could actually be violating another law, which is the law that two people cannot sit behind the driver seat at the same time!“

[BarryLiverstone]

truecommuter.com/.../

[jshm2]

She being stupid and pedantic.

Its right she got the ticket, and gets a bigger fine for wasting police and court time.

She's chosen the wrong hill to die on and is being a Karen to boot.

[Subarugirl]

Since she didn't violate and Texas law I doubt it... if anything they will amend traffic laws for the unborn because as the law is defined currently afetus is considered and individual person which would technically qualify.

[KelleyNice]

@Subarugirl That is a ridiculous argument. It is impossible to believe the police would be required to believe whatever a woman claims nor that they would take the woman to a hospital to verify that she is pregnant. Until they are born, a fetus is not a legal person. A fetus doesn't have a social security number, it doesn't have birth certificate, and it is not included in the US Census.

Of course, now you will make the stupid argument that a policeman can tell by looking if a woman is pregnant. Maybe he can tell at 9 months but what about 6 months? Maybe; maybe not but the law has to be consistent. Furthermore, do you want the police to order a woman to undress to see if she is wearing a pregnancy belly?

[Subarugirl]

@KelleyNice it is a legal person in Texas according to Texas penal code…

[Subarugirl]

Also it’s easy enough for a pregnant woman to carry a doctors note… or for the police department to require proof.. doctors can revoke drivers license.. so I’m pretty sure the could find a want to notify the DMV that a driver is pregnant…

[KelleyNice]

@Subarugirl Getting a doctor's statement is certainly a possibility. However, I doubt that the law will be changed to account for pregnant women. Any one can create a fake doctor's statement and verification will take time; not something the police want to do.

[Subarugirl]

@KelleyNice Why not? The law has already been changed as you can see in Texas penal code as it defines an individual as a human being that is alive including an unborn fetus at every stage of gestation until birth.

[Stoner710]

Yes, it does, of course the simple Solution to this issue is Just get rid of the HOV lane. Why do we need it anyway?

[Subarugirl]

HOV lanes are intended to incentivize throughput (move more persons per car, per lane) and save time for car-poolers and bus riders by enabling them to bypass the areas of heaviest traffic congestion. It’s also designed to help reduce motor vehicle emissions. Because most drivers, especially during rush hours, are driving alone, the HOV lane is seldom congested.

[Stoner710]

The left lane is for fast moving traffic if I got some nitwit infront of me going 55 in a 60 I use the left lane to pass. by the way the HOV lane was designed by liberals. If liberals like it conservatives have to be against it

[goaded]

"If liberals like it conservatives have to be against it"
Pathetic, but true.

[Subarugirl]

HOV lanes are intended to incentivize throughput (move more persons per car, per lane) and save time for car-poolers and bus riders by enabling them to bypass the areas of heaviest traffic congestion. Because most drivers, especially during rush hours, are driving alone, the HOV lane is seldom congested…..

[Stoner710]

@goaded to be fair liberals do the same thing to conservatives if conservatives love it liberals hate it

@Subarugirl you basically copied and pasted what you said last time

[goaded]

Name one thing "liberals" hate just because "conservatives" (radical right-wingers) love it.

[Stoner710]

@goaded the parental rights and education bill in Florida they called it the don’t say gay bill

[goaded]

Does it stop teachers talking about gay people?

[Stoner710]

@goaded kinda it stops k-4th grade teachers from talking about sexual issues to kids www.flsenate.gov/.../PDF

[goaded]

Including saying Sarah's got two mothers. You know, simple facts.

[Stoner710]

@goaded well Sarah doesn’t have to mothers because 2 women can have kids on there own. She has a mother and a father. She was just adopted by to women.

[goaded]

Not neessarily, and avoiding the question. Even if she's adopted, she has two mothers.

[Subarugirl]

Technically two women can... there have been many cases in which one mother has her spouse's fertilized egg implanted. A father raises his children a sperm donor just donates sperm. By definition a father is a male parent... you can sire a child without being a parent. There has been a lot of research into using bone marrow as a way of fertilizing an egg to produce a successful pregnancy, and is most likely something that we will see in the coming years.

[Stoner710]

Ok do a DNA test on the child you won’t get both women’s DNA you’ll get the sperm donor ( the father ) and one of the lesbians DNA. Dave Rubin is having a child with his Husband and he acknowledges that the child’s true parents come form her DNA structure it’s either him or his husband DNA that make him the true father, he just happens to be the other guy taking care of the child

[Subarugirl]

I think you mean biological parents and children born to a surrogate mother typically do carry some of her DNA.

[Subarugirl]

if you look at the definition of what a parent is, it's defined as a person who gives birth to OR raises a child

[Stoner710]

To be fair there is adoption v biological mothers technically I would have 2 dads and 2 moms my DNA mother paid my DNA father to get her pregnant so she could go on welfare. I was beaten when I was hungry slept with outside dogs in the winter and was left in a car in 105° so she could go get pregnant with another child. Of course my adopted parents are my mom and dad but there not my real mom and dad, it’s possible to be a parental figure to a child with out being there actual parent. No issue with gay couples adopting kids or using a surrogate but one is an adopted parent vs them having there own biological kid. Again David Rubin is technically is daughters adopted parent because the DNA is technically his husband kid and the surrogate ‘s child and he’s just playing another fatherly roll. Also from what I understand the surrogate is still I. The child’s life. But she also a new born. ( by the way they like to call Dave Rubin a homophobe even though he is a gay married man living in Florida)

[jcampbell115]

The immense lack of intellect in those with the "baby killer" stance is actually hilarious and should be embarassing

[Subarugirl]

Can you elaborate on that?

[Sixgunsound]

Hilarious, but I don’t think she is going to win.

[Subarugirl]

Why not? Yes as law says a fetus is a person and nothing about how it doesn’t count in the HOV lane

[OnTheLevel]

Should we also start charging a pregnant woman the adult price plus the price of a child's ticket to see a movie? Of course not, but that's the same logic you are using.

[Subarugirl]

@OnTheLevel most theaters won’t charge unless the extra takes up a seat….. like airlines…

[OnTheLevel]

So if I stand, the movie is free?

[Sixgunsound]

@OnTheLevel 🤣

[Subarugirl]

@OnTheLevel only if you’re a child under 3..

[OnTheLevel]

I act that way sometimes 😜

[Subarugirl]

@OnTheLevel no…. I hadn’t noticed…

[Sixgunsound]

@Subarugirl🤣

[Anonymous]

I’m sure they will change the law that it has to be an individual separate from another in order to be a person and not inside another person in order to use the HOV lane

[NYCQuestions1976]

Can't be inside another person? Will that mean no sex while driving? 🤔

[Subarugirl]

The law in Texas says that a fetus is an individual and a separate person..

[Opinion Owner]

Even so that’s not what the HOV is for since the fetus is still inside the mother so I don’t think she will win because the whole point of it is to take another person from another vehicle to lower a carbon footprint

[Opinion Owner]

@NYCQuestions1976 Probably not allowed anyway if you’re driving 😊

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Asker Well that's no fun...

[Juan4574]

That's right, life begins at conception. That is why that woman should receive a DOUBLE FINE, for carrying babies in the front of the car. Simple.

[crmoore]

You're arguing on technicality, not practicality. The point of a HOV is to encourage multiple people driving in one car when they otherwise would be driving in many cars. A fetus would not otherwise be driving a separate car.