Man gets jail for inducing miscarriage

[p0ink]

Man gets jail for inducing miscarriage
Washington Times | May 19

Man gets jail for inducing miscarriage

Montreal, QC, May. 19 (UPI) -- A Montreal man began serving a one-year jail sentence Wednesday for inducing his girlfriend's miscarriage with an ulcer-treating drug.

Gary Bourgeois, 46, pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance.

The court heard the man's unidentified girlfriend waited until she was more than three months pregnant to tell Bourgeois, who then persistently asked her to have an abortion. She refused.

Prosecutors said in September 2000 after having sex, the man slipped an ulcer drug tablet into the woman's vagina. Soon after, she began hemorrhaging and he drove her to the hospital where she miscarried, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., said.

As she was dressing to leave the hospital, she found part of the tablet in her underwear and called police.

In sentencing Bourgeois, Judge Jean-Pierre Bonin said "Society cannot tolerate a male partner in a relationship unilaterally putting an end to a pregnancy."

 

[p0ink]

"Society cannot tolerate a male partner in a relationship unilaterally putting an end to a pregnancy."

but society can tolerate a female partner in a relationship unilaterally putting an end to a pregnancy. if the chicks wants to have the kid, and you don't, you get stuck with child support. if a chick doesn't want to have the kid, and you do, you are still shit-out-of-luck.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

yeah what a winch

 

[danielson]

i completely disagree with the notion of a legal forcing of child support. It should be completely up to the father morally...there should be no legal reason for him to pay it, if he wishes to have nothing to do with it

however, this case is justified. He gave her a medication against her consent, which is enough, in addition to which it interfered in a biological process within her own body, and killed the foetus, even if it wasnt viable at this stage. if they can prove he did it, he deserves it

 

[The Wenis]

aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance

that's what he pled guilty to and the facts, as set out, support that plea. the miscarriage was merely a byproduct.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance

that's what he pled guilty to and the facts, as set out, support that plea. the miscarriage was merely a byproduct.

yeah, he should've just pushed her down the stairs and he would only have one of those charges.

 

[The Wenis]

yeah, he should've just pushed her down the stairs and he would only have one of those charges.

good call.

 

[velvett]

"Society cannot tolerate a male partner in a relationship unilaterally putting an end to a pregnancy."

but society can tolerate a female partner in a relationship unilaterally putting an end to a pregnancy. if the chicks wants to have the kid, and you don't, you get stuck with child support. if a chick doesn't want to have the kid, and you do, you are still shit-out-of-luck.

I get what you're saying but it's not the same thing.

 

[velvett]

i completely disagree with the notion of a legal forcing of child support. It should be completely up to the father morally...there should be no legal reason for him to pay it, if he wishes to have nothing to do with it

Really?

I'm shocked.


Morals don't feed and raise a child.

 

[RaZor Ramon]

There's not much to say on the charges or sentence but let's face facts. If men called the shots in abortion the human race would come close to dying out.

 

[-SD-]

Really?

I'm shocked.


Morals don't feed and raise a child.

Morals dont feed a child, but they most certainly raise a child.

 

[TheProject]

i completely disagree with the notion of a legal forcing of child support. It should be completely up to the father morally...there should be no legal reason for him to pay it, if he wishes to have nothing to do with it

however, this case is justified. He gave her a medication against her consent, which is enough, in addition to which it interfered in a biological process within her own body, and killed the foetus, even if it wasnt viable at this stage. if they can prove he did it, he deserves it

Are you serious?

 

[dzulboy]

i completely disagree with the notion of a legal forcing of child support. It should be completely up to the father morally...there should be no legal reason for him to pay it, if he wishes to have nothing to do with it

however, this case is justified. He gave her a medication against her consent, which is enough, in addition to which it interfered in a biological process within her own body, and killed the foetus, even if it wasnt viable at this stage. if they can prove he did it, he deserves it

well said

 

[awittyusername]

There's not much to say on the charges or sentence but let's face facts. If men called the shots in abortion the human race would come close to dying out.

Agreed.

I have a plan that would end abortion, unwed mothers, etc etc

At age 12 everyone should be given birthcontrol. When someone wants to have kids, they have to be married so many yrs, make a certain amount of $, pass drug tests, and take some parenting classes. Then you get a kid.

Come on, I have to get a permit to put up a fence in my yard. But, some jackass can knock up some skank he meets at a bar and I have to pay for their welfare. (and her kids future baby, etc)

 

[RaZor Ramon]

Agreed.

I have a plan that would end abortion, unwed mothers, etc etc

At age 12 everyone should be given birthcontrol. When someone wants to have kids, they have to be married so many yrs, make a certain amount of $, pass drug tests, and take some parenting classes. Then you get a kid.

Come on, I have to get a permit to put up a fence in my yard. But, some jackass can knock up some skank he meets at a bar and I have to pay for their welfare. (and her kids future baby, etc)

Because of constituation and medical reason that would never fly. In a some respects it's a good idea in theory though.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Agreed.

I have a plan that would end abortion, unwed mothers, etc etc

At age 12 everyone should be given birthcontrol. When someone wants to have kids, they have to be married so many yrs, make a certain amount of $, pass drug tests, and take some parenting classes. Then you get a kid.

Come on, I have to get a permit to put up a fence in my yard. But, some jackass can knock up some skank he meets at a bar and I have to pay for their welfare. (and her kids future baby, etc)

 

[awittyusername]

Because of constituation and medical reason that would never fly. In a some respects it's a good idea in theory though.

I know it wouldn't work and I'm not big on government control. But, I like discussing it, because it seems to piss off alot of chicks.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

I get what you're saying but it's not the same thing.

The man has no choice over whether the baby lives or dies. If he has no right to decide, he has no responsibility for the outcome of the decision. All rights entail responsibilities.

Take the two polar examples:

I have sex with some girl, the condom breaks, and she gets pregnant. She decides to have a kid (something I have no say in), and then I have to pay child support for her decision. Even if I had offered to pay for an abortion and she denied it, I'm being forced to pay for something I never intended to happen, and went out of my way to avoid. Sound familiar? Except now it's monetary responsibility and not the responsibility of raising a child. If it's part of your body and you have complete control over what happens to it, then why on Earth should a man have any place in it afterwards?


The other case, I'm married to a woman, we talk about having kids, I get her pregnant, and then I lose my job, and she decides she loves some other man. I want to have my child, I want to raise my flesh and blood, but she's done with me and she aborts the kid. Due to legal precedent, I have absolutely no say in the matter.


You can't have it both ways. Either the man's involvement is over after contraception or it isn't. Legally the woman might have choice over the life of her child, but she has no choice over the life of the father.

 

[danielson]

Really?

I'm shocked.


Morals don't feed and raise a child.

Are you serious?

yeah..

i know its kinda fucked up, but legally i don't think its acceptable for you to enforce child protection on a man

the reason being that a man can have intercourse with a woman, but not have any intention of wanting that child. A woman has exclusive descision making authority in the childs welfare when its in her, so if he wants an abortion and she doesnt, she wins.

Its credible he never wanted the baby and she did, in this circumstance i feel its acceptable legally for him to say he wants nothing to do with the child as he never wanted it in the first place because she refuses an abortion. morally is a different question, but the state has no business enforcing that upon another


another situation, where a father divorces, if the father isnt granted fair visitation rights i don't see why he should be expected to give her money. Legally speaking he is paying a price not to see his offspring as much as is fairly allowed, and if she wishes to get full access sheshould shoulder the inevitable financial burden, i think its unfair on a legal premise to force him to do otherwise. obviously there are exceptions to this, if he is proven violent and cannot be trusted, but even then i feel its unfair to have him pay for a child he never see's anymore

 

[Tryn2]

Crazy

 

[atlantabiolab]

yeah..

i know its kinda fucked up, but legally i don't think its acceptable for you to enforce child protection on a man

the reason being that a man can have intercourse with a woman, but not have any intention of wanting that child. A woman has exclusive descision making authority in the childs welfare when its in her, so if he wants an abortion and she doesnt, she wins.

Its credible he never wanted the baby and she did, in this circumstance i feel its acceptable legally for him to say he wants nothing to do with the child as he never wanted it in the first place because she refuses an abortion. morally is a different question, but the state has no business enforcing that upon another

I agree with your logic in terms of countering the hypocrisy of pro-abortion/pro-paternity advocates; I have used such arguments before to counter the stupidity of this concept, but I have no belief in the validity of either argument. It is merely an example of the fallacy of the pro-choice/pro-childsupport group.

As for your assertion that the state has no business enforcing morality on individuals, then I must ask: what is its function then? If the state cannot enforce "justice", the concept of moral action, then what is its necessity? When the state incarcerates an individual for aggressing against another, is it not enforcing "morality"? Are laws penalizing for rape not "moral" actions?

This idea that the state cannot impose morality is baseless, since it counters the very idea of "justice", the very idea of good government.

A moral system would demand accountability to the party involved. Thus the mother would have no recourse to kill the fetus because she "didn't believe she would get pregnant" and the state would force the father to pay restitution to the mother, if she decides to keep the child. One cannot simply claim stupidity as an absolution of responsibility. Why do we accept this feign of ignorance in this instance and not for say theft? Or child abuse?