| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Tremblay v. Daigle ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Tremblay v Daigle
''Tremblay v Daigle'' () 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law.〔Canadian Supreme Court. 8 August 1989. (Supreme Court Judgment: Tremblay v. Daigle )〕〔Dunsmuir, Mollie. 1991 Reviewed 18 August 1998 (Abortion: Constitutional and Legal Developments ) Library of Parliament, Research Branch, Law and Government Division. Current Issue Review 89-10E.〕 This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.
==Background==
By the time the legal controversy began, Canadian abortion law had already been mostly invalidated, as the Therapeutic Abortion Committees were found unconstitutional under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in ''R v Morgentaler'' (1988). That case, however, while finding the committees were unfair to women requiring therapeutic abortions, had not resolved the issue of the status of fetal rights. ''Tremblay v Daigle'' thus began with two Quebec individuals named Chantal Daigle and Jean-Guy Tremblay, who were involved in a sexual relationship in 1988 and 1989, with Daigle becoming pregnant in 1989. Tremblay beat Daigle, despite being aware of her pregnancy, and afterwards the relationship came to an end and Daigle developed an interest in obtaining an abortion. Among other things, Daigle cited a desire to raise children in peaceful and stable circumstances, an interest in never seeing Tremblay again, and concern for her own psychological health. In response, Tremblay sought an injunction to halt the abortion, claiming to be protecting the fetus's right to life. Tremblay defended the existence of this fetal right by saying that the fetus is indeed a person.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Daigle left the province for the United States to terminate the pregnancy. Nevertheless, the issue was considered important enough that the Supreme Court declined to set aside the case for mootness. They went on to give a decision, which was unanimous and which vindicated Daigle.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Tremblay v Daigle」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|