Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's very easy to argue against that logic. The entire point of having a separate HOV lane that moves faster than the other lanes to to incentivize people to share cars who otherwise would not do so. Since it is impossible for a mother and fetus to choose travel in separate cars, considering the fetus as a separate person when defining HOV lanes does not serve this purpose.

I see nothing remotely hypocritical about drafting traffic laws in this way, while simultaneously considering a fetus to have human rights and treating them as a "person" in other medical and legal contexts. Frankly, I think this would be gob-smackingly obvious to everyone involved, if it weren't tied up in a hot culture-war topic.

(Sadly, I feel the need to emphasize that, while I'm personally pro-choice, I'm making no argument here in favor of or against being pro-life or pro-choice. Just that this particular line of argument is really dumb and pointless.)



> It's very easy to argue against that logic.

As I read them, you’re introducing exceptions that Texas “managed lanes” laws don’t have.

Texas law is that “a vehicle occupied by two or more people…may use HOV lanes”. A fetus is not yet a person, but if Texas law says that fetuses are constitutional persons, then how would fetuses not have those rights in this case?

(IANAL, also just arguing based on logic.)


That might be true, as a matter of legal interpretation. If so, that's a solid argument for updating the traffic law with more precise language, but not much else.


HOV lanes should be for car pooling. Therefore to qualify a vehicle should have multiple people who are eligible to drive themselves, i.e. adults. So in this context there should be no debate.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: