Abortion or Homicide? The Schizophrenic Logic for Killing a Child

By Nancy Flory Published on October 31, 2018

It was, the court said, attempted first-degree intentional homicide. Maniskumar Patel had slipped a drug into his girlfriend’s drink. She suspected that he had spiked the drink and had it tested. When it came back positive for a dangerous drug, he was charged.

What makes this case unusual? He wasn’t trying to kill his girlfriend. The drug was the abortion-inducing RU 486. He was trying to kill their unborn child. The court sentenced him to 22 years in prison. It could have given him 60.

And his girlfriend? She was only a few weeks pregnant. She ended up miscarrying shortly after Patel was charged.

What makes this case significant? The DA charged him with attempted first-degree intentional homicide. If his girlfriend had taken the drug herself, the state would defend her right to do so. It might even pay for the drug. How does this make sense?

Why the Contradiction?

Wisconsin state law defines an unborn child as “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive.” What happens when someone murders one of those unborn children?

The law states that “any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.” He may be punished with a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisoned for up to 6 years, or both. The law also says that “Any person, other than the mother, who … intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child” is guilty of a Class E felony. That’s an even worse crime. He may be punished with a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisoned for up to 15 years, or both.

The state charged Patel with seven felonies and two misdemeanors. He was sentenced to 22 years as part of a plea agreement.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

However, the statute goes on to say that the restriction doesn’t apply to “therapeutic abortion” — even though it considers the aborted child a human being. If Patel’s girlfriend had willingly taken the abortifacient drug, state law would have protected her. Since it was the father who tried to kill his unborn child, he was charged with attempted homicide. This does not make sense

The conflicting laws on the killing of an unborn child boggle the mind. Father goes to jail. The mother gets to do what she wants. How can a child be a human being protected by the law when the father kills him and a human being not protected by the law when the mother kills him? Who gets to say whether a child is valuable or not? How does this make sense?

The Value of Unborn Children

According to Dr. Grazie Pozo Christi, the Wisconsin case highlights the different laws applied when men and women kill their unborn child. The radiologist and policy advisor for The Catholic Association explains: “The Wisconsin case is a clear example of the schizophrenia that affects our society when it comes to the value of unborn children. On one hand, abortion is legal, right up through the last day of pregnancy, simply at the wish of the mother. On the other, a man who causes an abortion against the mother’s wish is convicted of murder.”

“Some fetuses,” she continues, “are valued members of society upon whom we lavish every care including intricate fetal surgeries and months-long intensive care. Others are destroyed and their little parts used for research. It’s high time that all unborn children, wanted, or unwanted, be accorded the same protection and respect.”

Have we really gotten to the point where if a child is wanted by the mother, it’s a baby (and an attempt to kill him is murder), but if the child is not wanted by the mother, it’s a legal, state-sanctioned, socially approved abortion? Can’t we see that the outcome is the same? Can’t we see that if we could ask him, the child wouldn’t understand how his father can go to jail but his mother not? 

A child, every child, is wonderfully made. The value of a child does not change simply because the mother wants it or does not want it. Only God — the Creator — can assign human value, and He says we’re all valuable (Matthew 6:26Matthew 12:12Luke 12:24). If every child is valuable in God’s sight, who are mothers or fathers to decide otherwise?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    “…he was charged with murder.”

    Wouldn’t that be attempted murder?

    “This does not make sense. ”

    No, it does not.

    • Bryan

      According to this article she miscarried and then he was charged with murder. I don’t know the medical part, but if he spiked the drink and she had any, he probably would have been charged even if the drug didn’t actually cause the miscarriage because he had tried to produce that effect.

      • Paul

        If it went down like that it would be fascinating. Either way I agree with the premise of this article that this conflict of law makes no sense. I was debating with a pro abortionist who doesn’t at all like these types of laws because even she could plainly see the problem and would do anything to maintain the opportunity for a mother to kill her unborn child.

      • Steve

        There’s a lot to this. I agree with what you say but do we know all the facts. Did she abort and place the blame on the drink. Its seldom cut and dry especially based on hear say.

  • Dena

    They call the baby a fetus to make it sound less human.

    No one stops and thinks that the baby feels pain when the Abortionist rips the baby apart, alive with no anesthetic. We try to pretend it’s not a baby to justify abortion.

  • Andy6M

    Good article. Not sure the picture is the right one to use though.

    • Steve

      I agree the picture is not the best – at least to avoid a biased signaling. I think the article is obviously written by a pro-life person – I am also pro life – and abortions like some “convenience store” choice in general seems wrong. But I think the writer based on this presentation – and the picture – might not also be open to exceptional situations e.g. abortion of a fetus by a woman raped or a situation that threatens the life of the mother.

      The discussion by politicians typically becomes an all or nothing one – which is due partially to playing to level of critical thinking of many in their constituency. I think if there was less of the tremendous partisanship seen today there might be a better assessment of the situation. While many plead the Godliness argument and imply their is a soul to consider – as I believe – I do not think God is going to sentence souls to a hellish outcome based on this world’s choices.

  • tether

    We live in a society where there is no accountability for so much of what we do.
    We also live in a society where men are treated as a second class citizen in regards to parental rights. The woman can decide to keep or abort the child that took 2 to make. So the child is as much his as it is hers. Yet if she decides to keep it she can then force the biological father to support the child regardless of his desire to or not to keep it. Just as she can kill the baby pre birth regardless of his wishes. What if the father wanted to raise his child?

    • Steve

      Good points. I do think men are shortchanged in this issue.

  • Steve

    Let’s face it. Our society and its laws are man/woman made as in not of God’s laws as Christ implied in Matthew 22:21. Therefore, it seems when we pontificate – as is often the case especially with politicians – about abortion – no room is left for the exceptional cases. It mostly seems to come down to an all or nothing argument. That is another twist to the so called “therapeutic” choice. While all lives are valuable, and considering the argument of the body holding a soul, abortion in all cases seems tragic. There are indeed times, however, that it might seem more compassionate for abortions to happen than not e.g. a fetus with no limbs or one with such a severe congenital disease that it would be sentenced to a life of total dependence and suffering – not to mention the hardship involvement of the parent(s). Also, there are many cases where women are raped and faced with conceiving the child of their rapist. I do not pretend to know the answer to such choices and not being a women I can never totally know the impending situation. I would say that I would like to see there be inclusion of the thing I’ve mentioned in the typically all or nothing discussions that most politicians engage in to promote their platforms. I do not see that as happening though especially in these high partisan times with the all or nothing being the only thing many people believe.

  • Nanita Staley

    It is simpler than that. James 1:8 says that a double minded man is unstable in all of his ways. How much more double minded could we as a people be than to say, Well, on the one hand this “fetus” is a child that deserves, demands, to be protected. But, on the other hand, if this life is inconvenient, an interruption of the pleasures of life, then it is just a mass of tissue, sort of like a tumor, and it is quite ok to remove it by whatever means is available. OMG! I cannot conceive of anyone thinking they have a right to “terminate” the life of an innocent unborn child. And our school systems are the ones that have permeated all of society with this evil. The schools are nothing more that the modern version of Nazi death camps.

If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do?
David Kyle Foster
More from The Stream
Connect with Us