Choice For Women/18 Years Payments For Men

[Annie]

Think Scott Peterson.

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Certainly different in that they were married and killed his wife too, but 2 counts:

Sentencing[edit source | editbeta]
San Quentin State Prison, where Peterson is incarcerated

On March 16, 2005, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi formally sentenced Scott Peterson to death, calling the murder of his wife "cruel, uncaring, heartless, and callous".[37] The prescribed method of execution was lethal injection. He also denied the defense's request (which was based on evidence of juror misconduct and media influence) for a new trial and ordered Peterson to pay $10,000 toward the cost of Laci Peterson's funeral.

In the early morning hours of Wednesday, March 17, 2005, Peterson arrived at San Quentin State Prison. Peterson was reported not to have slept the night before, being too "jazzed" to sleep, calling some to question his state of mind.[38] [39][40] Peterson joined other inmates in California's sole death row facility while his case is on automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco. National Geographic made a documentary on San Quentin prison, with Scott Peterson's admission to the prison covered in its Part Two.[41]

On July 6, 2012, Peterson's lawyer, Cliff Gardner, filed a 423-page appeal of his sentence.[42]

Hasan was also charged with murdering one of his pregnant victims unborn baby.

Currently only women have a choice. I agree that the way the law is now, they should have those choices, but with it should come the responsibility of caring for the child. If the male chooses to not exercise his parental rights, he shouldn't have to pay for the child.

You’re confusing civil law with criminal law.

A woman’s right to privacy is predicated on substantive due process in civil law, where the state is prohibited from interfering with a woman’s right to decide to have a child or not prior to fetal viability.

The arrest of Welden concerns criminal law in the context of procedural due process, where he acted in an alleged criminal manner against the woman without her consent.

The Perterson case is also criminal law, not civil.

Consequently, there is nothing ‘inconsistent’ or ‘hypocritical’ about an outside actor harming a pregnant woman, where that actor is charged with two murders in the context of criminal law, and a woman seeking to end her pregnancy on her own accord, in the context of the right to privacy, where the state is prohibited from interfering as a matter of civil law.

I don't really care, the point was made and understood and you are not on retainer.