Father of abandoned newborn turns himself in;
The man who allegedly abandoned his newborn child in a Wal-Mart bathroom stall has come forward to Prince Albert police and his fate is now in the hands of Crown prosecutors."He was very distressed and very upset, of course, over the whole thing," said Prince Albert Police Sgt. Curtis Halcro, noting investigations are on-going.
The man received medical treatment and was interviewed by investigators, but no charges were laid and he was not taken into police custody, police said.
Accompanied by family members, the man turned himself in Friday after the incident the previous Monday when a newborn baby boy was discovered in a toilet.
The identity and age of the man still remains uncertain. Police confirmed that he is over 18 years of age.
Discuss.
Clever.
Q: What do you call an abortion after birth?
A: A flush
Poor man, he must need a lot of counseling to deal with the horrible event of having some potential responsibility come into his life.
We should certainly flush the toilet for him and see what we can do about getting him a grant an perhaps pay his mummy and daddy some rent to help him with his finances. He will need to use any money he has to go have a good time and forget all about this horror.
Dat's da Canadien val yous ah?
discuss-ting
If the media reports are correct and the child was found upside down in a toilet. There's only one charge that's appropriate...
Attempted murder.
Very interesting, his responsibility did begin at the exact moment he spilled is sperm. However, he was not present at the moment of birth so cannot be conisidered to be an accomplice, unless it can be proven he was aware of her plans.
Argh, don't get me started. Why is it when we (women) do anything despicable we are given a pass because of the 'stress' of the situation or the 'emotional difficulty' or the 'coercion of a powerful male in our lives'. It’s assumed that a woman is incapable of malignant behaviour of her own accord – we’re influenced by outside forces beyond the capabilities of our pretty, little heads. However, dare to suggest that women can't compete in the business world (I'm not by the way) and the wrath of hell descends upon you. We simply can't have it both ways. What this woman did was wrong and she should be held accountable not given a pass because she was 'traumatized by the pregnancy, the birth, the baby's father, (insert excuse here)'.
must have been the earliest ever onset of post-partum psycosis... hmmm even pre-partum.
Once the "Crown" appears the baby is usually viable.
Nothing will happen to the woman .. there will be many reasons why she had to do what she did. It may have even been George Bush's fault.
Kate -- I'm off topic. But give WK some love for his latest, over-comma'ed but spot-on, post.
"The identity and age of the man still remains uncertain. Police confirmed that he is over 18 years of age."
OK I'm confused...he's over 18 and not protected by the YOA so why don't we have particulars in this offender? This witholding info from the public by courts and police arbitrary authority is getting chronic.
Gormley argues that it won't do any good to file any criminal charges against the mother.
This was the same argument used regarding the baby abandoned on the Saskatoon doorstep this winter.
Perhaps if the Saskatoon woman had been charged, convicted, and punished, the women in PA would have gone to a hospital instead of Wal-Mart.
How many months until the next newborn is abandoned? How many months until the next mother is excused?
"He was very distressed and very upset, of course, over the whole thing," said Prince Albert Police Sgt. Curtis Halcro
I often feel the same way about my own 'little transgressions', and strangely enough, much like this wonderful gift to the human family, the onset of these emotions occurs immediately I am caught.
Cheers!
Kate, you are amazing. I had to read things three times to figure out what you were up to. Sadly, I must be a bit thick to have missed that "gentle" dig first go around. As George Jonas pointed out it is just this kind of fuzzy thinking society has adopted that needs to be exposed, and nothing exposes it quite as powerfully as substituting Man for Woman.
Ahhh, the loving, caring forgiving society of today. No doubt if it had really been the father the dude would have been crucified, unless of course if he was of aboriginal descent. Then it would have been society's fault and the poor lad would have to spend more time in the sweat lodge.
Before the leftoids start, it is not a racist commentary but the sad truth of today. Sometime people will have to stand up and take responsibility for their actions and not blame everyone but themselves.
I'm "very distressed and very upset" today, can I go kick the crap out of Jack Layton and get away with it.
Well, it was a nice thought anyway.
I love how they characterize it as "abandonment" when it was in fact, attempted murder or at worst, grievous neglect.
And for those who missed it...it wasn't a man. It was a woman, and Kate is making the very valid point that had this been a man, the story would have been spun very differently.
In legal speak, a woman is like a man but without accountability.
When we hold women equally responsible for their actions only then will they have equality.
It's all very simple.
We used to live in a society where every right had a corresponding responsibility. The right to express yourself versus the resposibility to allow others to express themselves. The right to be able to live your life with a sense of security versus the resposibility to not kill and not threaten the security of others...and so on.
Once upon a time, women had fewer rights than men and, thus, fewer responsibilities. For example, a woman couldn't enter into a contract, but she also couldn't be sued for breach of contract either.
Then, early feminists come out and said, "We are not shrinking violets. We want the same rights as men." And, all of those women (at least I think) understood that that meant taking on the reponsibilities that come with those new rights was implied.
Then came the eras of feminism from the 1960's onward. Slowly but surely, groups like NOW and SOW have demanded more rights. (Sometimes they confuse "rights" with "privileges".) But, they wanted no counter-balancing responsibilities. In other words, they began to argue against their feminist fore-mothers' original claims that asserted women are not inferior creatures that need to be treated like infants. On the contrary, they claimed, the world's rules must change so that women can have the same rights as men with none of the responsibilities. That, my friends really amounts to demanding special privileges.
For generations now, if a woman (married or not) gets pregnant by mistake, we have been telling young men, "Stand up. Be a man. Take responsibility. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it." And so on.
We don't say that to women.
If a man fathers an illegitimate child and simply runs away, we call him "deadbeat" and use all means necessary to track him down and garnish his wages so that he is made to take responsibility for the new life that he created.
But, if a woman willfully endangers her newborn in a way that could easily (and foreseeably) result in the death of that child, we offer her counselling. We act as if being a woman is tantamount to insanity...we can't hold them responsible because they can't appreciate the severity of that which results from their actions.
If this is the way our society is to be, then I move that we immediately declare women incapable of having any rights. They should once again be asking for a change in definition of "person under the law." This time, we reverse what those silly Famous Five women did. I mean who were those crazy broads? They actually thought women should be seen as legally equal to men. Clearly, modern feminists and most members of our own society don't see it that way. Everything about their stance on issues like this indicates that they think women should return to having a status that is equivalent to that of an infant.
So, come on SOW people...let's get cracking.
Rights either come with responsibilities or not at all. And there can be no double-standards. If a woman can abandon a child on a doorstep or in a Wal-Mart toilet, then I want to see it spelled out what means a father can use to endanger the lives of his children with impunity.
If liberals can't come up with an answer to that, then they have no place else to go but to start calling for this new mother's head on a pike.
Of course, I am sure there is something in my evil, woman-hating, neo-con brain that makes me unable to see things reasonably here.
Bryceman, try looking at it all through the "women are victims of men" lens and it will all come clear.
Mother Earth and Sister Moon both understand.
Wonder Woman said: "And for those who missed it...it wasn't a man. It was a woman, and Kate is making the very valid point that had this been a man, the story would have been spun very differently."
Or was Kate attempting to see how many would comment on the post without reading the link first? Inquiring minds need to know... ;-)
I love your subtlety here Kate.
On the question of why the name has been withheld, I'm only assuming but I'd bet the farm that the girl's name rings unmistakeably Native. Like the posters in the thread have been pointing out, the doling out of responsibility is steered far more by identity politics than by actual facts. If her name was Sally, it's gets released; not so if you're a Pochahontas.
For the bettors in our midst: I'd put the odds on momma's ethnicity at 9 to 1. Nine being that she's Native, of course, the 1 going to the field.
P.S. Not sure it matters credibility-wise, but used to live in P.A. and was back there only two weeks ago.
Very well said Bryceman.
"Sparta was a military state, dedicated to war and violence, and alleged to have been founded by Lycurgos in the 8th century BC. An absolute education system was set up. Under this the state was very much more important than the individual. Peoples' lives were evaluated by whether they would be of use to the state or not. The lives of strong, healthy male children were dedicated to the state, unhealthy babies were left on mountains to die. (This Spartan practice was taken as an example by Nazi Germany, and it was claimed, under the influence of Darwinism, that the sickly had to be eliminated for a 'healthy and superior race.')"
Evidently a woman with a neo-pagan Spartan tendencies, which has now been extended to eliminating whether healthy or not.
I want to thank the manager and the others who worked to resusitate the baby. Think about what it takes to resusitate a blue coloured(lack of oxygen) and bloody baby found in a toilet. These people are heroes. I won't say everyday heroes because sadly what would have been obvious in the past is not so much.
Try to have a little sympathy and understanding for the poor guy. Clearly, he was under a lot of stress, and if you look closely, more of a victim than a perpetrator. How can we as a society make it right by him?
Try to have a little sympathy and understanding for the poor guy. Clearly, he was under a lot of stress, and if you look closely, more of a victim than a perpetrator. How can we as a society make it right by him?
"Bryceman, try looking at it all through the "women are victims of men" lens and it will all come clear."
Or "minorities are victims of majorities"...
Or "a certain religious persuasion is victim of the West"
Or "gays and lesbians are victims of heterosexual attitudes"
and so it goes.
Therefore they can do no wrong and the rest of us can do no right.
shaken has described the essence of multi-culti society and judicial pronouncements. Hooray for the Charter that makes it all possible!
I see your point Kate, that there is a double standard...if it was dad who attempted murder(is there a politically correct way to say 'drop a newborn baby in the toilet'?)he would have been charged.
What everyone is careful not to mention also is the fact that if an abortionist had killed the baby an hour before mom tried to kill him, we wouldn't be having this discussion.Because it is legal in Canada.Judges will avoid this like the plague.
Very sad.
Recently, The National Post had a fine editorial about this crime—sorry for being so insensitive as to call it what it really is—in which it posited that this young woman should NOT be let off.
This society is in big trouble because we continue to be soft in the head about people who commit crimes and other misdemeanours. I'm a teacher: schools' behaviour codes are a joke. There are usually no consequences posted or given. I haven't worked with an administrator in over a decade who's been willing to enforce any serious discipline—what's THAT?—even for grave breaches, such as possessing a lethal weapon. In that case, the rubrics were NOT followed and—you got it!—“extenuating circumstances": there were none—were invoked. As required by board policy—totally sabotaged by the principal’s right to invoke extenuating circumstances—there was no suspension, no weapons report to the police (what school wants those on the record?): no nothing!! The mother was called and told she could pick up the weapon at the school if she wanted.
On another occasion, the principal stated that a student regularly not doing homework over nearly a two-year period was not “habitual neglect of duty”. It isn’t? Administrators are now all powerful and often ignore or twist and turn board rubrics any way they like.
A teacher at the school where the student was recently shot and killed in Toronto wrote a brave article, published by the SUN. She has the same tale to tell: lax administrators at all levels who turn a blind eye to any and all infractions. It's truly a scandal. With the inmates running the asylum, it’s no wonder our kids are not learning how to behave properly. From the Canadian public education system, this young woman in Prince Albert probably learned, especially if she belongs to some favoured minority, that she’s entitled to her entitlements. It’s highly unlikely that her school experience disabused her of this pernicious idea, set any realistic standards of civilized or responsible behaviour, or exacted any consequences when she or her friends behaved like spoiled brats or worse.
As a teacher, I believe I have a soft heart: I truly care about my entitled special education students and their well-being. But I have a hard head when it comes to discipline, which they desperately need if they're going to have any chance of success. Canada's tendency—very much Charter driven, I'm afraid—to look the other way and let the "poor victim" off the hook is victimizing the rest of us.
As I said, we’re in big trouble and what this young woman did, which shows a complete lack of empathy and altruism, is altogether symptomatic of the behaviour of far too many young people today. But, under the Charter dispensation, that’s how we’re bringing up our kids these days.
Canadians need to smell the coffee and smarten up, big time.
What's the big deal? First the book ... then the CBC series "Little Baby in the Toilet". Canadian values and all of that. Win-Win.
You've got it, ural. Good for you!
Brad said:" I love your subtlety here Kate.
On the question of why the name has been withheld, I'm only assuming but I'd bet the farm that the girl's name rings unmistakeably Native."
Bingo!!! Or another visible minority which the multicult have image sanitized as being above incest, drug addiction, infantacide, criminality and sundtry other evils which have been ascribed to their majority "oppressors".
If this person attempted infanticide it was because they were victimized by the rest of us...can't charge a crime when it is society what really done it! ;-)
WLMR: "I'd bet the farm that the girl's name rings unmistakeably Native"
Or her name rings Liberal. That's another case where she'd be protected by state and the media alike, right?