Judge imposes 22-year sentence in case involving abortion-inducing drug

5610900792387617515Interesting. How can you impose a 22-year sentence for harming a non-human blob of flesh? 

Apparently the pre-born’s ontological status is dependent upon the desire to murder or not. 

APPLETON – A man who was accused of putting an abortion-inducing drug in his girlfriend’s drink was sentenced Tuesday to 22 years in prison.

Manishkumar Patel, 45, was convicted in August of attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child. His girlfriend didn’t ingest the drink, but miscarried weeks later.

Outagamie County Judge John Des Jardins also sentenced Patel to four years of extended supervision.

Patel was charged in November 2007, but spent about a decade on the run before he was arrested in New York in January 2017. He forfeited a $750,000 cash bond — posted by family and friends — when he fled.

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/judge-imposes-22-year-sentence-case-involving-abortion-inducing-drug/1567018002/

2 thoughts on “Judge imposes 22-year sentence in case involving abortion-inducing drug

  1. A woman’s fundamental Constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy was decided in 1973 by Roe V Wade and also on the same day by Doe v Bolton. This right was reaffirmed in 1992 by Planned Parenthood v Casey which was decided by 8 Republican appointed justices and 1 anti-Roe Democrat appointed justice. No where in any law or court decision is a boyfriend or husband or any other third party granted the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy against her wishes, hence the 22 year sentence.

    • A legal right to murder is not the same as a moral or ethical right to murder.

      The question remains: why is the ontological status of the pre-born determined by a decision to murder?

      Why do we call the pre-born an “unborn baby” when we want to keep it, and a fetus when we want to murder it?

Comments are closed.