• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Man faces murder charge for giving woman abortion pills

Dope Nose

Sidekick
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/APC0101/71129075

Authorities say Town of Kaukauna man gave woman abortion pills to induce miscarriages

By Jim Collar
Post-Crescent staff writer

APPLETON – Authorities are seeking a homicide charge against a man they say caused a woman to miscarry by giving her abortion pills without her knowledge.

Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of the Town of Kaukauna was arrested Wednesday on charges including stalking, first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child and reckless endangerment. He’s expected to make an initial appearance in Outagamie County Circuit Court at 3:30 p.m.

Authorities today said the case might be the first of its kind in the country.

According to deputies, the victim sought testing from a California lab after a September miscarriage, which was her second in less than a year.

Tests showed the presence of Mifepristone, which is more commonly known as RU-486. The drug isn’t available by prescription in the U.S.

The victim went to police after receiving the test results Nov. 1.

“It was quite a complicated case,” said Capt. Mike Jobe of the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Department. “There was a lot involved in the investigation.”

Patel and the woman were involved in a relationship before the woman sought the test.

Investigation of the case involved the sheriff’s department, Kaukauna police and the federal Food and Drug Administration. While approved by the FDA, the drug is only available in the U.S. to doctors licensed to it, according to the administration.

Police still aren’t certain how the drug was obtained.

“That’s still a part of our investigation,” Sheriff’s Sgt. Ryan Carpenter said. “We believe he was mailed the drugs from outside the United States.”

Use of the drug put the woman at serious risk of harm, authorities said.

The FDA reports that the drug carries the potential of serious adverse effects, which has included several deaths. Proper administration of the drug requires medical supervision, authorities said.

Officials said Patel acknowledged giving the drug to the woman when investigators interviewed him.

“I think he understands the seriousness of what happened here,” Sheriff’s Sgt. Gary Shortess said. “I don’t think he quite understands the seriousness of the consequences he’s going to be facing.”

Patel owns several businesses in the area, police said.

Investigators said the case was complicated by the restricted nature of the drug. Authorities had difficulty finding a laboratory capable of testing its evidence. They eventually found an FDA lab in Cincinnati.

Authorities said the investigation required a strong team effort.

Kaukauna police handled aspects of the case dealing with a harassment injunction filed against Patel by the victim. Police are seeking charges of stalking, burglary and violation of a restraining order stemming from that aspect of the case.

Sheriff’s investigators handled the area of the case dealing with the circumstances behind the victim’s miscarriage.

“I think this is a great example of collaboration between the agencies here,” Sheriff Brad Gehring said.
 
Here is some Abortion Powder. :(


pACE2-1245143reg.jpg
 
our world is so ****ed up... how can this be murder if he didn't kill anyone :huh:
 
our world is so ****ed up... how can this be murder if he didn't kill anyone
This is the stupidity that drives me insane.

Especially after that "double murder" case where the guy killed his wife and their "unborn child",
It is clear that society has answered the questions about "when life starts"

Life starts when someone wants you. :):up:

He signed ya, foetal tissue
Now you're a human

Oh YeAh!
 
There are abortion pills?

Like, for real?

Actual pills?
 
couldnt he have just stopped banging her without a rubber? sounds like a chicken egg problem....
 
she should have taken the blue pill.
 
And it's not a news story from the Middle East :wow:
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-choice and I hate pro-lifers with everything in me. But isn't it a little odd that if she had taken those pills under her own consent it would be just fine yet when some dumb guy gives it to her in some drink it's murder? I suppose an arsonist who burns down a fertility clinic with 5,000 embryos in it is as bad as Osama Bin Laden now.
 
I'd say her intent to have the child could have played a factor. Though I'm guessing the charges are just knocked up (pun not intended) to get him to plead down to a lesser one.
 
I'd say her intent to have the child could have played a factor. Though I'm guessing the charges are just knocked up (pun not intended) to get him to plead down to a lesser one.

Doesn't assault seem more appropriate considering the legality of abortion?
 
i one time got a girl pregnant, and she got an abortion without my prior knowledge or consent... i know this is a little different, but still, if a woman can decide not to have a kid without telling the father without any repercussions, shouldn't the opposite be okay, too?

seems like a double standard, albeit a very, very complicated one.
 
it is a doubly standard , i think she should also be charged with murder.
 
Doesn't assault seem more appropriate considering the legality of abortion?

Well, I think intent to have the child has been established to play some role in the criminality of it. But yes, which is why I think they are simply trumping up the charges to get a lesser plea bargain.
 
For me, I cannot support abortion. From the second I saw my daughter in a sonogram and heard her heartbeat, I lost all support for abortion. As to how this counts as murder is simple, she had decided to keep the baby. Once she did that, she envoked her right to choose, she chose life, and he ended it. Now, of course, condoms would have al hell of a lot easier.
 
this case brings up a lot of points that i'm surprised have never been discussed in a courtroom before. like, if a couple gets pregnant, the man basically has no say in what the woman does with the baby, even though it's 50% his, and i don't think that's right at all. if the woman says 'i want an abortion.', but the man wants to keep it, what can he do? i'm actually shocked that this hasn't been brought up before.

also, why is it okay for a woman to get an abortion, but when a man does it, even though the child is half his, it's (apparently) called 'first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child'? that guy should have just as much say in the fate of that fetus as the woman does.

i'm not saying what the guy did was cool, but like i said, it raises a lot of interesting points.
 
i one time got a girl pregnant, and she got an abortion without my prior knowledge or consent... i know this is a little different, but still, if a woman can decide not to have a kid without telling the father without any repercussions, shouldn't the opposite be okay, too?

The only thing is there is a difference between a woman getting an abortion without telling the man in her life that she's getting one, and a guy essentially slipping her a mickey
 
The only thing is there is a difference between a woman getting an abortion without telling the man in her life that she's getting one, and a guy essentially slipping her a mickey

i know there's a difference, i just really hope this case gets the publicity it needs so it can make the public ask the question: should there be a difference?

that baby was 50% his, period. and there should be no gender-bias when it comes to any law, or any bias at all. if a woman stabs some guy in the face, is it murder? yup. if a woman gets an abortion, is it murder? nope. so why would it be murder if a guy did it?
 
Because when it comes to pregnancy, the guy doesn't have the fetus inside them for 9 months.
 
this case brings up a lot of points that i'm surprised have never been discussed in a courtroom before. like, if a couple gets pregnant, the man basically has no say in what the woman does with the baby, even though it's 50% his, and i don't think that's right at all. if the woman says 'i want an abortion.', but the man wants to keep it, what can he do? i'm actually shocked that this hasn't been brought up before.

also, why is it okay for a woman to get an abortion, but when a man does it, even though the child is half his, it's (apparently) called 'first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child'? that guy should have just as much say in the fate of that fetus as the woman does.

i'm not saying what the guy did was cool, but like i said, it raises a lot of interesting points.

Because under our current law it is not 50 % his until it leaves the woman's body.
 
i know there's a difference, i just really hope this case gets the publicity it needs so it can make the public ask the question: should there be a difference?

that baby was 50% his, period. and there should be no gender-bias when it comes to any law, or any bias at all. if a woman stabs some guy in the face, is it murder? yup. if a woman gets an abortion, is it murder? nope. so why would it be murder if a guy did it?

how bout opposite, like this guy, say he was working at mcdonalds and his girl is all like 'lets have a baby' hes prob just going along with it to get some of that RAW you know? then he finds out that hes got the super sperm, obviously, on a mcdonalds salary you gotta find someway to get rid of the little bastard. i smell double standard.... maybe thats just me though....
 
Because under our current law it is not 50 % his until it leaves the woman's body.


but that's exactly my point: it may be the law, but that hardly makes it right. maybe this will make people examine the law a little more closely. sure, maybe the woman is the one that has to go through the pregnancy and everything, and i'm sure that's not easy, but that shouldn't make the kid any less his. the point is that if the mother can kill the unborn fetus with no consequences, then why can't the father? no law should be based on gender/race/etc...
 
but that's exactly my point: it may be the law, but that hardly makes it right. maybe this will make people examine the law a little more closely. sure, maybe the woman is the one that has to go through the pregnancy and everything, and i'm sure that's not easy, but that shouldn't make the kid any less his. the point is that if the mother can kill the unborn fetus with no consequences, then why can't the father? no law should be based on gender/race/etc...


word. takes two to make a baby, belieee dat!
 
i have some simple questions.

lets say a women gets pregnant. but the father doest want a baby. so he is against the baby. the women wants teh baby. so when she gets teh kid the father needs to take care for the kid right? its the law right?
but what if the women doesnt want teh baby and the man wants it? the women can get rid of the kid and the kid is not even born. what can the man do here?


doesnt sound fair IMO
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,698
Messages
21,788,651
Members
45,617
Latest member
SuperheroWoman
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"