This should be interesting. A woman was ticketed for driving in an HOV lane in Phoenix, Arizona with only her unborn son as a passenger. She's fighting the ticket in court. (Fedora Tip: PowerBlog!)
"I understand the reasoning for the HOV lane. But whether my son is in a car seat versus in my stomach, I don't get it. It's the same thing." - Candace Dickinson
Funky Dung
Comments 8
Well, we may have outdone "the coffee was too hot" as most ridiculous legal argument.
Will be a strawman for the pro-abortion movement for years to come.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2005 at 4:54 pm ¶The lady's argument is silly because her son doesn't require another seat.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2005 at 9:28 pm ¶I've got nothing new to offer here, but still I feel the need.
Car pool lanes are intended to reduce traffic, so if the woman can make the case that her unborn child would have driven (or that he even could have ridden in) another car if she hadn't offered him a ride… well, then maybe she's got a point.
Even taking the reasonable side of this sort of argument makes me feel stupid.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2005 at 6:43 am ¶I think her argument is that had the child been using a seat, he'd have counted for the HOV lane. IOW, ability to drive is not written into the law. If a minor can count for HOV use, why can't an unborn child? I think this woman's actions are meant to be political. Either she wants the HOV law tightened up or, more likely, she wants to set legal precedence for treating a fetus as a human person.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2005 at 1:06 pm ¶or she wants to avoid paying a fine
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2005 at 1:44 pm ¶i don't know how the law is written, but i don't think that even if she had a minivan full of kids that she should be in the hov lane. it's my understanding that they are to be used by commuters that carpool rather than drive alone, thus cutting down on traffic and pollution. if there are no other potential drivers in the car with her, she shouldn't be in the hov lane. she must be out to prove something, or off her rocker. those hormones do weird things to a pregnant woman.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2005 at 7:13 pm ¶Funky,
I also can't attest to the actual HOV rules in Arizona, but I'm pretty sure that the carpool concept pretty squarely rests upon there being a possibility that the additional person could physically occupy space in a separate car.
Whatever the specifics of the law, this woman's argument is at worst dishonest, and at best, ignorant of the law's intent. And that was actually what I was getting at with my statement.
Rest assured, the central nature of this matter has zero to do with the life issue, at least on any coherent level. I'm all for counting the unborn as people (something I think you already know), but this lady and her defense for driving in the carpool lane are both out to lunch.
+0
Posted 19 Nov 2005 at 8:04 am ¶A case like this came up in California a number of years ago, and the court ruled to count the unborn child. I had very mixed feelings, because on one hand any legal precedent that counts an unborn child as a person strengthens the perception of truth; but on the other hand, what a very trivial and manipulative way to make that point!
I wish this would stop being a political issue and start being an issue of logic and compassion.
+0
Posted 23 Nov 2005 at 5:05 pm ¶Post a Comment