Dang commie-liberal-abortionist judges strike again
The Nazz
12-01-2006, 07:22
Okay, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the judge in this case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_fe_st/brf_fetus_carpool)--but the argument from the driver is, um, novel to say the least.
PHOENIX - Fetuses do not count as passengers when it comes to determining who may drive in the carpool lane, a judge ruled.
Candace Dickinson was fined $367 for improper use of a carpool lane, but contended the fetus inside her womb allowed her to use the lane. Motorists who use the lanes normally must carry at least one passenger during weekday rush hours.
Municipal Judge Dennis Freeman rejected Dickinson's argument Tuesday, applying a "common sense" definition in which an individual is someone who occupies a "separate and distinct" space in a vehicle.
"The law is meant to fill empty space in a vehicle," the judge said.
Sgt. Dave Norton stopped Dickinson's car Nov. 8. When asked how many people were in the car, Dickinson said two, pointing to "her obvious pregnancy," the officer said.
Norton said Dickinson's theory "would require officers to carry guns, radios and pregnancy testers, and I don't think we want to go there."
Did she think she'd actually get away with it? If so, that's a bit scary.
UpwardThrust
12-01-2006, 07:25
Agreed the intent of the law is to promote geting a few adults togeather and sharing a car therefor reducing the number of people driving their cars
Its just silly to count a fetus as a passenger in this case
Stone Bridges
12-01-2006, 07:27
She should've used a blow up doll.
The Black Forrest
12-01-2006, 07:37
She should've used a blow up doll.
Hmmmmm do you own one? ;)
DrunkenDove
12-01-2006, 07:40
Hmmmmm do you own one? ;)
http://wackywavingtubeman.ytmnd.com/
UpwardThrust
12-01-2006, 07:41
http://wackywavingtubeman.ytmnd.com/
You made vodka and sprite come out my nose! I love that movie
"Testify in church"
Liverbreath
12-01-2006, 08:07
Silly girl. She should have realized that a fetus only counts as a person in a case of murder or assault. It never counts as a person when she is trying to kill it, or cheat the city council out of their money.
Stone Bridges
12-01-2006, 08:21
Hmmmmm do you own one? ;)
She broke up with me. :(
UpwardThrust
12-01-2006, 08:28
She broke up with me. :(
She was under a lot of pressure
Stone Bridges
12-01-2006, 08:29
She was under a lot of pressure
Yea, she did say she needed room to expand.
Unabashed Greed
12-01-2006, 08:32
Silly girl. She should have realized that a fetus only counts as a person in a case of murder or assault. It never counts as a person when she is trying to kill it, or cheat the city council out of their money.
Awww. Sad moralistic stupidity is starting to invade joke threads now? No soup for you!
The Nazz
12-01-2006, 08:36
Awww. Sad moralistic stupidity is starting to invade joke threads now? No soup for you!
Actually, I expected it sooner or later. No doubt there's some people in the US who would say she's right, perhaps even Liverbreath's two Senators.
THE LOST PLANET
12-01-2006, 08:48
Okay, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the judge in this case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_fe_st/brf_fetus_carpool)--but the argument from the driver is, um, novel to say the least.
Did she think she'd actually get away with it? If so, that's a bit scary.
The judge should have agreed with her... then cited her for reckless driving as both those persons were occupying the drivers seat at the same time.
The fine would have been greater... would have been at fitting punishment for wasting the courts time.
The Nazz
12-01-2006, 09:00
The judge should have agreed with her... then cited her for reckless driving as both those persons were occupying the drivers seat at the same time.
The fine would have been greater... would have been at fitting punishment for wasting the courts time.Interesting idea--the danger, of course, is that the judge might have been cited as precedent that the fetus was indeed an individual, and then the anti-abortion folks would have had a field day.
The Squeaky Rat
12-01-2006, 09:06
Interesting idea--the danger, of course, is that the judge might have been cited as precedent that the fetus was indeed an individual, and then the anti-abortion folks would have had a field day.
Not really. Considering the pregnancy "was obvious" the fetus probably was well enough developed to have a neural net, or possibly even be able to survive outside the mothers body. Most pro-choice advocates would therefor probably agree it is a person - which is why abortion in the later stages of pregnancy is only allowed if the mothers life is at stake.
The Black Forrest
12-01-2006, 09:19
Silly girl. She should have realized that a fetus only counts as a person in a case of murder or assault. It never counts as a person when she is trying to kill it, or cheat the city council out of their money.
Ahhh the comments from the Intelligent Design state.....
BackwoodsSquatches
12-01-2006, 09:53
The difference between Liberals and Conseratives is, that when Liberals are in power, they throw money at problems.
Conservatives throw money at themselves.
Eruantalon
12-01-2006, 10:52
Wow, what a desparate case! Way to grab at straws!
The difference between Liberals and Conseratives is, that when Liberals are in power, they throw money at problems.
Conservatives throw money at themselves.
ROFL!
The Nazz
12-01-2006, 13:58
Not really. Considering the pregnancy "was obvious" the fetus probably was well enough developed to have a neural net, or possibly even be able to survive outside the mothers body. Most pro-choice advocates would therefor probably agree it is a person - which is why abortion in the later stages of pregnancy is only allowed if the mothers life is at stake.
Well, I think you're reading more into the word "obvious" than necessary--a pregnancy, depending on the woman, can be obvious at 3 months, which still falls under the Roe decision, and in most women is obvious by 5 months, which is still early for any late-term abortion ban.
I'm not worried about any repercussions from the judge's decision because, frankly, anyone who tried to use a traffic court decision as precedent for a larger case would likely be laughed out of court. It is a little scary, however, that someone would actually try to make that argument in the first place and not be doing it in a joking, halfhearted way.