How long a prison term did Scott Peterson get for murdering his pre-natal offspring, Conner?
He was convicted on a count of murder for murdering his wife Laci, and he was also convicted on a count of murder for murdering his pre-natal offspring, Connor. There was a separate prison term assigned for each count.
There are precedents already set in the matter.
From my perspective, the age of the person murdered has no bearing on the sentence.
Thus the incarceration punishment for murdering a pre-natal should be the same as for murdering a post-natal.
Irrelevant histrionics.
People who murder go to prison.
The solution is to not commit murder, in this case, murderous abortion.
It really is that simple.
You can't seem to extract yourself out of a world where no science existed in support of the newly conceived's personhood and right to life and place yourself in a world where science has made that declaration.
Once the science-based law goes into effect, people will obey that law for obvious reasons.
Though your oppositional defiant disorded mind projects disobedient revolution in response to the new law, your doomsday fantasy will simply not reflect the acceptance reality of nearly everyone.
It is irrelevant to cite where laws against abortion ran up against resistance in the past because those scenarios were not backed by science, so there is simply no analagous relevant comparison that can be situationally made.
I made that clear to you ... yet even after your next paragraph makes it clear you grasped that, you still posted this paragraph.
You're obviously losing your mind to denial, Mare.
Yes -- abortions were banned on religious, dictatorial, idiosyncratic, whatever, grounds without relevant appeal to science.
The scientifically revealed truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception and is thereby endowed with the foundational right to life changes everything, as that truth makes a universal justified valid authority appeal to modern humanity that is in and of itself completely persuasive.
The natural completely persuasive appeal that science has will be universally respected, whereas religions, dictators, politician's idiosyncratic ideas, all are simply not universally accepted.
The universally accepted nature of science means all the difference this time.
Compartively irrelevant.
When people don't accept the validation of the authority behind the law, there are violations.
When people do accept the validation of the authority behind the law, there are very little violations.
That makes all the difference.
People will simply stop commiting murderous abortion.
Oh, absolutely -- absolutely they will.
Science has universal appeal to modern humanity.
Religions with differing tenets and doctrines and all, there's no universal appeal, no valid authority in religion for making a case that everyone will want to obey.
And again, we're talking about murder here, Mare, murder which science has confirmed can occur because of the personhood of the newly conceived.
People will believe science when it comes to determining the condition of being alive because people today respect science, science which belongs to everyone.
These same people would revolt if someone else's religion were the basis for the law.
It really is that simple, and true.
Erroneous, and has throughout been obvious that your statement is erroneous, as I'm the one supporting science and making it clear that religion has no place in this discussion.
You're getting lazy with your lies, Mare.
Those who know that a person begins to live at conception because science says so are indeed in the majority.
But some of them will still commit murderous abortion today because they determine to do so based on other than respect for the newly concevied person's right to life.
But there are still a lot of people who are ignorant of this relevant scientific revelation. These people need education, and, they are the ones who will really need the law to enforce their life-respecting behavior.