Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill
POSTED: 8:25 am EST November 30, 2007


A married Wisconsin man has been charged with causing a woman to have two miscarriages by slipping her the abortion pill.

Authorities said the woman already has a 3-year-old child with Manishkumar Patel and had become pregnant by him two other times.

"These allegations are devious, diabolical and disturbing," Outagamie County Court Commissioner Brian Figy told Manishkumar Patel at a hearing, according to the Appleton Post-Crescent newspaper.

Snip......... The Indy Channel
______

WOW - I've never even thought that a man could use the abortion pill (RU-486) to eliminate 'a problem' for him.

So, those of you that believe that abortion is OK - would this be murder? The guy is being charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child; second-degree reckless endangerment; placing foreign objects in edibles; possession of prescription drugs; stalking; burglary; possession of burglary tools and two counts of violating a restraining order. The burglary charge stems from his allegedly entering the woman's residence while she was out.

Or, is the unborn child not really a child at all, just let him go about his business?

whoa

i certainly think so, yes. the woman is not making a choice here with her body before the fetus is viable.

As with most of _X_'s questions, it's a pointless one. Indiana law calls for a murder charge if a person attempts/succeeds at inducing a miscarriage against the woman's will or without her knowledge.

At the very least it is assault upon the woman, taking from her or causing her to lose something/someone that is part of her body.

I see, Huge Ron, that you changed my message to 'right to choose' versus abortion, but at the end of the day (and the life)
it's abortion - in this case the killing of a baby, right?

There is really nothing new here, except men now has reasonably ready access to RU-486, the same as women. Therefore, for example: if a women becomes pg, married or not, and the man involved doesn't want the baby - women now need to check to see if RU-486 was used if they suddenly lose the baby. What a strange drug and world we have created.

Quack off!

If either partner did not want the pregnancy, why didn't they use precautions to prevent it in the first place?

It's not a part of her body, it's a separate person.

This goes to the question of whose right it is to terminate a pregnancy. It should certainly not be done in as devious a way as this, but if the father does not want the child, the mother should have to abort it, put it up for adoption, or agree to raise it without support from the father (unless she can prove that the man wanted the child in the first place).

just to start trouble....


He did want it in the first place.... they was knocking boots!!!

Take another look at the guy's picture - we can generally now be described as the stupid human race at this point in our evolution. Stupid has taken over - whether it's the housing market, abortion, illegals - we have turned into a clueless nation of clueless people - just look around the cooler for more evidence - for example: Huge Pale eliminates problem posts and closes a thread, versus eliminating the posters that created a problem for him and perhaps other posters. Now, posters wonder what happened, but BOL Management comes in with a power post about GOLD and who has the GOLD. It goes on and on........

your depth of knowledge leaves me awestruck...

Yes, stupid. So, is this man a murderer? Or did he just do us all a favor...?

Well........

Mom kills their two week old unborn child...”choice”
Dad kills their two week old unborn child...”murder”

Very problematic!

When dad starts carrying the unborn child, then it will be choice too.

I'm not sure I'd say that the drug is "readily available". From what I have read, in the United States, RU-486 is available only by prescription AND must be taken by the woman while she is in the doctor's office and observed by the doctor or a nurse practitioner. The article stated that this man must have obtained the drug somehow from outside the U.S. and reiterated what I just posted about the prescription requirement and that the woman must take the pills in a doctor's office.

Yes, I think this man should be charged with murder. And he was charged with murder, among many other offenses, both felonies and misdemeanors.

Not meaning to be so tangential, just for a moment. But this is why, ladies, you should never leave your drink unattended when out, especially to go to the ladies room when on a first date or relatively early on. Any type of pill an be slipped in there.

As for this guy, he is a lowlife of the lowest order.

But X's original post once again raised the same good point raised in the "Fetus" thread last week, the unborn child, both person and non-person.

No. that's just the political spin that you want to put on it. The Supreme Court has specifically held that a fetus is not and never has been a "person" under the US Constitution. State legislatures are free to pass whatever laws they want within constitutional bounds, though.

Go ahead and rant about this phony "inconsistency" all you want, it's the anti-abortion people that have created it.

OK, so how can this guy be charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide? How can he be charged with any major crime? What do you see as his crime, if any?

And you can rant your illogic all you want, just about everyone sees the absurdity in it and the absurdity of your defending it.

what is illogical about what he said, tmos?

Actually, it's illogical that you even asked this question. What are you pretending not to know, Huge Ron?

BTW, is what this man did OK with you, in other words - it was not murder, just an act of abortion as if it was performed by one of your abortion doctors?

just like it except that the woman never asked the man like she asks the doctor who is a person/profession given permission to do things to an individual's body. you need a medical power of attorney from another person to have a doctor do something for them.

What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?

To do what Ron? Kill the unborn child? Which, if done by a third party, is murder, since only a human being can be murdered? Which the unborn child is not if he/she is aborted. That is the illogic, like -X- said, don't pretend to not know what I am getting at.