Wow, you cant say homicide here, now thats interesting.. So now you can get the death penalty for not a nice act.....Hmmmmn

There is clearly only one crime, i.E. Killing the woman. In fact, one of the things that is most objectionable is when a woman is killed and the media attention only focuses on the fact that she was pregnant. As though if she wasn't pregnant, it would be no big deal. I find that sick.

My opinion is for you to stay out of my uterus with your morals.. You'll be better off.. That simple.

umm okay not sure what this has to do with the question at hand.

Maybe you can explain why the fetus has rights if its mother is killed, but not if its mother wants it dead???

Again with the scott peterson bs.. The fetus was viable at the time of the homicide and he took away the womans choice to be a mother.

medical question off jlee.. I aint talking to you health forum and yes I just answered the damn question person

What do you think neo? I guess if it's not viable then there is only one charge of homicide. Neo... The people who decided that scott was guilty of two murders are everday people.. Not prophets holding the absolute truth

Poopoo, the media focuses on the killing of a pregnant woman because it is has more tragedy... More than one life was ended in one act... That is why it may draw more attention than a non pregnant woman or even a man.

If one bomber kills several people with one bomb, how many crimes were committed? It doesn't matter if you consider it one crime or not, more human life was killed.

Bd... Scott peterson took away a lot more than her "choice" he took away her life! So do you agree he should be charged with more than one count?

bd, the people who decided roe v wade were not prophets holding the absolute truth, they were everyday people...

In this case I am not sure.. I can only tell you why he was charged with more than one count.. Not whether or not I agree with it. I don't think they should add charges just for the hell of it unless they are real things that he did... Not just some made up because of emotion so he could get a higher sentence.

that's true, but they give people the choice.. Your morality would make people who don't follow those morals be without choice... With ours you can still follow yours and we can follow ours.

you echo my feelings exactly, that is why I wanted opinions, I think mr. Peterson was guilty of both acts, but if the fetus inside mrs. Peterson had not yet been viable should that make a difference, because I don't perceive that it makes much of a difference in the abortion debate because many pro-choice advocates also support partial-birth abortions.

i never said that charge was made up.. Witl asked me if there should be more than one charge because he took away a pregnant womans life and I said not unless the charge was real and not something they pulled out of their ass so he could a tougher sentence.. If the fetus was not viable at the time.. It would've been a ridiculous charge imo and that is what I meant.

It is my personal belief that the focus for punishment in the crime should always be the ending of the woman's life. I think I should point out that historically, we have had laws on the books to make the sentencing more harsh whenever a pregnant woman was involved. Prior to the 90's, the focus of this sentencing was always the ending of the woman's life with additional years added to the sentence for ending the pregnancy. To my knowledge, it was not until the late 80's early 90's when the death of the fetus was treated as a second crime with its own sentencing guidelines. To this, I personally do not agree. The ending of the woman's life is the most grievous act and should be dealt with accordingly. In my opinion, levying a second set of charges which lately have held roughly similar sentencing guidelines for the ending of the pregnancy, focuses attention away from the woman's death and makes it seem that the real crime was the ending of the pregnancy, not the ending of the woman's life. Coupled with the media's representation of the crime, it does seem to me that lately we have been valuing the potential life over the woman's life.

In my opinion, the focus of the sentencing should always involve the woman who was killed. Does her homicide warrant the death penalty or the harshest sentence available? Then, after the sentencing for the woman's death, the extinuating circumstances, namely the pregnancy, should be considered for any additional sentencing. This is historically how these crimes have been dealt with in the past. Now, however, it has seemed as though the fetus and sentencing for its death is held above the woman's death.

As to the question of viability, I would have to do more research on it. I have not read where viability was a factor in historical cases or laws. In my opinion, anytime a woman's pregnancy is ended without her consent, especially when she was so close to delivering, is horrific. When our lawmakers sit down to write laws regarding this subject, lately they have made the focus of certain laws the fetus and the violence exerted on the woman becomes a mere footnote. This is also unacceptable to me. When given the opportunity to make the focus of the law the actual woman involved, the lawmakers balk and refuse. Clearly, there is some other agenda at work in the development of these laws.

A minor point, scott peterson stands a good chance at winning an appeal. From what I have read, the case was built upon circumstancial evidence and there were other factors present during the trial. He could get away with everything.

Jenn, it appears that my research about mr. Peterson is in agreement with yours, and his chances of an appeal are quite good due to the activity with the jury, but i'll digress at this point at risk of starting yet another debate. And we also agree on the original question....Odd I find myself agreeing with you more and more...

I know, it shocks me too. I think though that this is what's supposed to happen in a civil discussion. You start to see that both sides aren't really that different from eachother. In a way, that's kind of comforting.

Very well said, tis true we can all raise valid points....And yes its nice to find a civil discourse in this sometimes hostile environment...This subject lends itself well to heated exchanges....

they were us supreme court justices who were given the task of applying the us constitution ot current law. They are the experts in constitutional law and they are the ones who make that specific determination. So while they are "everyday" in the sense of being human being, they are extraordinary in their legal jurisdiction and position. So your claim really don't fit reality. Their views and rulings are indeed the absolute truth regarding legal constitutionality.

ur nonsense. He at worst killed an 8 month fetus. You really ought to fix than nonsense propensity that you carry around.