Judge to woman guilty of feticide: You could have aborted legally
You Ms. Patel, are an educated woman of considerable means.
If you wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have done so.
You planned a course of action and took matters into your own hands.
~ Judge Elizabeth Hurley of Indiana, upon sentencing Purvi Patel to 20 years for neglect and six years for feticide in the death of her child, as quoted by the Daily Mail, April 1
The article further notes that the judge "condemned her for treating the baby 'literally as a piece of trash.'"
Chief Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roule added, "His only chance at survival was his mother. In this case, the mother did nothing, left him on the floor to die and threw him in the trash."
[Photo via deccanchronicle.com]
Tags: anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti-life, Daily Mail, feticide, Indiana, Jill Stanek, Judge Elizabeth Hurley, legal abortion, Mark Roule, neglect, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, Purvi Patel, track
Apr.01, 2015 11:25 am | The Courts |
20 Comments on "Judge to woman guilty of feticide: You could have aborted legally"
April 1st, 2015 at 12:36 pm
In other words,
You should have killed your child earlier than you did and I would be fist-bumping and high-fiving you now instead of sentencing you to jail.
Ughbelievable.
So if the baby had died at the hands of an abortionist at the same stage, this woman would not be in jail, because what she would have done would have been entirely legal in America.
As for the "piece of trash" remark: What is medical waste consisting of human (aborted fetal) remains, but essentially "trash" that must be disposed of differently?
The abortion industry treats these humans as trash. I don't understand why these people are so shocked at what she did. Maybe it's because they're in denial about the true nature of abortion.
"an educated woman of considerable means"
If this mom and this judge are an example of educated rich folk, I choose to remain poor, ignorant
and pro-life.
It is just so heartbreaking to see this sort of thing happening again. This is what a culture of death and sterility leads to…
Lord, help us to be as salt and light to a lost world.
This is tragic.
Our culture tells young women that their children are disposable and discardable…. but they are not.
Reality collides with our cognitive dissonance. So now a child is dead, and the young mother will spend the next decade or two in prison.
And yet, the news report takes effort even to avoid disclosing the gender of the "fetus." Why do we work so hard at avoiding the obvious? What are we afraid of seeing?
My first post should have read, "You should have paid someone else to legally kill your child, and I would be fist-bumping and high-fiving you now instead of sentencing you to jail."
I didn't read the article close enough. Ooops.
Ignoramus are me.
April 1st, 2015 at 2:13 pm
"And yet, the news report takes effort even to avoid disclosing the gender of the �fetus.�
Yep. Can't risk disclosing anything that may "humanize" the fetus in the eyes of the public. After all, gender is a characteristic a baby (or older human for that matter) would have.
To be fair, the judge said "…you COULD have done so". She didn't say "..you SHOULD have done so".
The article further notes that the judge �condemned her for treating the baby �literally as a piece of trash.'�
At least the judge acknowledged this baby as a human being, who deserved justice.
The header wording needs to be corrected.
TheLastDemocrat
About 30 weeks old: WaPo story: "McGuire, the doctor who examined the fetus when it was first found by police, said that the baby was about 30 weeks old and could probably have survived after birth."
She could file a suit, claiming it cannot be murder if a physician could abort at 30 weeks and not be found guilty of murder.
"Either the law applies to all, or none" is a common-language phrasing of a legal principle.
She could be found innocent of murder, but guilty of the abandonment charge, and guilty of a couple related charges, such as endangerment of a child – exposing it to an abortifacient without doing so under medically recognized treatment and care patterns.
This is a sentencing.
It is too late for defense, or a lawsuit. The trial is over.
I suppose that she could file an "appeal," perhaps claiming that her defense lawyer was incompetent. And the new lawyer could try some of that goofy argument that it is legal to kill any child because it is legal to abort children.
I doubt any lawyer would dare to attempt that, and I doubt that any judge would accept the appeal. But crazier things have happened since Roe v. Wade…
Its obvious this woman has some serious problems of her own. Good question. Why wouldn't she have an abortion? Maybe she didn't want one. Maybe the child was planned and wanted. Likely this woman has a very sick mind.
Geez, you mean human nature isn't always ruled by logic? People don't always do what we consider the most logical? Human nature is considerably too complex to assume problems will be solved with a suction aspirator?
There is not much difference then being a botched abortion at Christ hospital in Chicago where the babies gets put in a dirty linen closet to cry herself to death.
Not really. The judge said, "If you wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have done so."
Abortions don't kill pregnancies, abortions kill humans. And abortion is never safe for the preborn child.
The judge told this mom that she would have remained jail-free had she chosen to legally kill her child (terminate her pregnancy – hah!) versus illegally killing her child. The judge reminded this mom that she had the financial means and the smarts to make the "right" decision.
To be fair, the judge said ��you COULD have done so�. She didn�t say �..you SHOULD have done so�…The header wording needs to be corrected.
Changing it would be the honest thing to do. What do you suppose Kelli will do?
April 2nd, 2015 at 12:37 pm
Just for you, LisaC, I'll change it, so it doesn't offend your little shriveled, pro-abortion heart. MWAH! *wink*
April 2nd, 2015 at 9:37 pm
Just for you, LisaC, I�ll change it
Why should my stance on abortion rights have any bearing on the honesty of the reporting here? It is unsurprising and yet remarkable that this site doesn't believe that pro-life readers deserve the truth.
The truth is this: Even if there were a Planned Parenthood next to every Starbucks in the country, some women would still do this. Abortion has never prevented anything, improved anything, or solved anything. And I believe that legal abortion cheapens all human life, and poisons people's minds. Once we don't have to take care of our own children, whom we've EVOLVED to love and nurture, why should we take care of anyone else? The question of when is the deadline to snuff a person's life is beside the point.
April 3rd, 2015 at 1:40 pm
Why should my stance on abortion rights have any bearing on the honesty of the reporting here? It is unsurprising and yet remarkable that this site doesn�t believe that pro-life readers deserve the truth.
Oh lawd. Could you back the hysteria and self-righteousness trucks up just a wee bit, please?
By the way, I hope you're continually fact-checking all the claims from the liberal, pro-abortion rags you likely read (heck, you could make a full time job of that!). Probably not, though.
Have a blessed Good Friday, LisaC.
April 6th, 2015 at 10:01 am
And of course, the usual suspects are using this story as proof that we're all out to get pregnant women and put them in jail for having miscarriages.
http://action.rhrealitycheck.org/page/s/condemning-indiana
April 6th, 2015 at 9:54 pm
9ek: The truth is this: Even if there were a Planned Parenthood next to every Starbucks in the country, some women would still do this.
Yes, and some women on welfare would continue to pop out kids even when they're already into double figures. And there would be Susan Smiths, killing their born kids, and dads killing, and moms and dads killing each other. Yup, it's gonna happen, regardless.
It's still better to have an early abortion, versus killing your kids like Susan Smith did, and better than the deal in this thread. Almost everybody thinks that, even those who won't readily admit it.