TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

"Patel gave birth to a live foetus..." - is that what they are calling newborn babies these days?

[deleted]

April 1, 2015
20 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/the-first-woman-in-the-us-to-be-convicted-of-killing-a-foetus-gets-20-years-in-jail/story-fnh81jut-1227288294326
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title "Patel gave birth to a live foetus..." - is that what they are calling newborn babies these days?
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 20
Comments 26
Date April 1, 2015 10:22 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/311ghc/patel_gave_birth_to_a_live_foetus_is_that_what/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/patel-gave-birth-to-a-live-foetus-is-that-what.984302
https://theredarchive.com/post/984302

Comments

[–]DougDante 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Patel gave birth to a live foetus and charged her with child neglect.

I wish she had dialed 911 and asked for help.

According to wikipedia, this living human after being born outside his or her mothers womb would be more properly called a "baby"

A fetus (/ˈfiːtəs/; plural "fetuses"), also spelled foetus or, archaically, faetus,[1] is the term used to refer to a prenatal mammal or other viviparous vertebrate between its embryonic state and its birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Yes there is a political movement to legitimize infanticide as post-birth abortion:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

I oppose infanticide.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She induced the abortion with pills that they have proved she bought, and which they have text messages from her claiming that she took. And despite what known trolls above us have said, this baby was third trimester.

Every last ounce of opposition to this case comes from lies.

[–]pasaroanth 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I would love for someone to enlighten me as to how this has any relevance to men's rights.

[–]DAE_FAP 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm gonna try and go full conspiritard for a second here.

Feminists love to beat men over the head with violent crime statistics, especially rape. They portray a world where the vast majority of sickening forms of crime are committed by men, and that those committed against women, like rape, are especially horrible. While it is true that most violent crime is perpetrated by men, they like to ignore the typically female perpetrated crimes, like infanticide. Infanticide is most commonly committed by a new mother suffering from post-partum depression (which might have been the case here). Rather than admit that women commit socially despicable crimes as well, they would rather legalize the crime and pass it off as "reproductive rights".

It's another example of feminism dismissing mental illness as a possible cause and instead doing mental gymnastics to justify her actions and find a way to blame men.

Well, back off to sanityland with me. Hope this was at least enjoyable to read.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]pasaroanth 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get your point, but she got 20 years so it's not like she got off with a slap on the wrist.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same people who are anti men's rights are distorting this story to make it sound like she got twenty years for terminating a pregnancy, which is completely false. She got twenty years for having a live birth and throwing the 30 week old baby in the fucking dumpster. This story shows the lengths the media will go to make women look like the victims.

I'm completely pro choice, but pro choice has nothing to do with letting someone throw a living baby into the dumpster.

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

how this has any relevance to men's rights

The child had a father, which you have ignored.

[–]the-tominator 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well in some way, it shows how our society now works.

Women > Children > Men

[–]andejoh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here is another way to look at it. Men have no reproductive rights. A woman can give birth to a child he doesn't want or abort a child he does want. If abortion were outright banned, men and women would have equality as far as reproductive rights are concerned. Neither would have a choice. Limiting a woman's access to abortion moves the needle in the direction of equality.

[–]notnotnotfred 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

CONTEXT. Read the last paragraph of the article. This is a smear piece on the "Unjust" state of Indiana.

If you don't obediently hate Indiana IRT to the RFRA act that that they just passed and which mirrors the RFRA that Bill Clinton signed and that Obama voted, for, you DAMN WELL better hate them for their stance on post-birth abortions, or you're just not a good liberal, and the twitter block bot will block you. And then you won't get invited to any parties.

[–]pasaroanth 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I live in Indiana and we have been under the radar for years and years. This RFRA bullshit isn't a reflection of the majority of the people here, it's our bait-and-switch piece of shit governor. He pulled the same BS with the gay marriage thing.

All these people are threatening to pull their business from here without thinking about who it will hurt. Yes, I understand that they'll be reducing tax dollars that go to the government, but they're also hurting the businesses and people of the state who disagree with all of this. A couple businesses pulling their money is a drop in the bucket for the state, but it's thousands of peoples' livelihoods. This is retiree's money that they won't see, it's small business owners that will have to close up shop and go work at WalMart, it's families that will foreclose on their houses.

[–]DAE_FAP -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

which mirrors the RFRA that Bill Clinton signed and that Obama voted

Not true at all. This version contains a combination of language that no other iteration on state or federal level has. It could be argued that based on this new law, businesses can not be sued for discrimination if their religious beliefs support their discriminatory practices. The LGBT folks are most upset about this because middle american Christianity has been very political in it's anti-gay stance, so a business's christian views could be used as legal defense of discrimination. It could also be used in a wide variety of other ways.

One doesn't have to be a progressive or anti-religious freedom to see how flawed this particular piece of legislation is, one only has to read it. Had they omitted one of two particular clauses, there would be no issue with it.

Otherwise you aren't wrong. That law will be used time and again to poison the well in political discussions in and outside of Indiana. For fucks sake, it's being used to make infanticide look acceptable. Typical political bigotry we see from the left. They'll use this alongside all their other rhetorical switches to beat white men into keeping their thoughts to themselves.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law is really meaningless. Sexual orientation wasn't a protected class in Indiana even before this law was passed. Any muslim or christian who didn't want to perform services for a gay wedding would have already been able to legally refuse without this law. The law is just political pandering to right wing Christians , but the reality is it changes very little. Religious people were already able to legally refuse their personal services for gay weddings.

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The article doesn't state whether the foetus was viable at the time she gave birth. It's a thin line to walk and there is a difference between giving someone 20 years for tossing a 8 month old foetus in the garbage and doing the same to a 4 month old foetus. One is viable outside the womb and the other is not. This is a pretty significant point.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The baby/fetus was certainly more than 4 months. The defense claims 24 weeks and the prosecution experts claim more like 30 months. So we're talking third trimester between 6 and 7.5 months.

The crux of this case is the medical examiner claims that she had a live birth of a viable fetus and threw the born baby into the dumpster

[–]chocoboat 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

This article is severely lacking in information. How many weeks had she been pregnant? What cause did they have to believe she did something criminal on purpose? Was this some kind of abortion gone wrong, or what?

To the OP, a miscarriage is technically "giving birth to a live fetus".

I'm going to try to find some more information...

OK, it turns out she was accused of buying abortion pills without a prescription, and supposedly the pills caused a miscarriage and the fetus died immediately after being "born". She got rid of it in a dumpster, and went to a hospital to be treated as she was experiencing vaginal bleeding.

Blood tests taken at the hospital showed no evidence of abortion pills in her system, but they found text messages on her phone where she asks about buying them. She was estimated to be 23-24 weeks pregnant.

This sounds like a case that has a high likelihood of being overturned. Toxicology tests specifically showed no drugs in her system. And the conviction on multiple counts makes no logical sense, as she was charged with killing the fetus, and then with the crime of neglecting a living child.

With flimsy evidence and the court unable to make up its mind whether the fetus is a person or not, I don't think this conviction will last.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The article lacks those facts because of how massively negative those facts are.

For starters, the baby was in the third trimester. She bought illegal medication not cleared for use in abortions. The medical examiner proved that the fetus was viable. And she illegally disposed of the body in a restaurant dumpster.

This conviction will stand. There is literally not one legal leg for the defense to stand on here. That's why they're beating the political drum so hard on this one.

Edit: they have receipts for the pills. They have text messages on her phone saying that she took those pills. The toxicology simply doesn't matter. Do you have any idea how quickly the average drug passes through your system? Most drugs are not fat soluble the way pot is...

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If all of that is true, it's pretty damn pathetic that the news coverage mentions none of it. I'd expect that from a feminist site (they're treating this as if the woman was convicted simply for having a miscarriage... which is at least theoretically possible, considering the lack of hard evidence I've seen) but for serious news agencies to ignore all of that would be kind of terrible.

Regardless, I'm still confident that she will find some level of success in her appeal. You can't convict someone of child neglect when a simultaneous conviction argues that it wasn't legally a child, and that it was killed (and therefore the abandonment of it is not neglect).

Those two charges seem to be mutually exclusive.

[–]mrheh 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet if you kill a women while pregnant aren't you charged with double homicide?

[–]mrheh 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The tox came up negative because those drugs leave your system very quickly.

[–]andejoh 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Based on what I read, I agree that the conviction will be overturned. I'm not sure that's a good idea from the defense perspective though. There is evidence to suggest that the fetus was born alive. The absence of an abortion drugs in her system and the circumstantial case showing that she intended to kill the child (ie buying the drugs, putting the child in the dumpster, lying and hiding her pregnancy, etc.) all point to first degree murder.

I suspect that the prosecutors were reluctant to charge her with that. Her defense team may force their hand. It will be interesting to see.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The prosecution alleged (and got a coviction) based on her giving live birth to an approximately 30 week old viable baby before dumping the baby in the dumpster. She wouldn't have been charged if they thought she had a still birth. The doctors who saw her at the ER testified that they estimated she would have been about 30 weeks pregnant. A defense person is the only one claiming only 23 weeks.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know what they do in Australia, but in America, we would refer to a second-trimester fetus as a "fetus" in a clinical or legal setting, although the pregnant woman and her partner would typically speak of a miscarriage at that stage as "losing the baby."

The Patel case is bullshit.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It was a third trimester baby.

Edit: Also, it's not a miscarriage if you induce it using illegal medication which you admit to having used in your own correspondences.

There is not one valid reason to oppose this conviction unless you think that women shouldn't have to follow the rules and regulations regarding 1) abortion, 2) the use of controlled substances and 3) the disposal of a body.

Edit 2: Perhaps you people should get your news some place that isn't DailyKos?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was third trimester. The defense claims 24 weeks and the prosecution experts claim about 30 weeks. So between 6 and 7.5 months. The crux of the case is the medical examiner claims she had a live birth of a viable fetus yet dumped the born baby into the dumpster. She didn't get this sentence for just a stillbirth resulted from self induced abortion.

Twenty years seems extreme, but if she really put a living baby into the dumpster I have trouble feeling much sympathy for her.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter