Peter F

You mean the male can't make a woman have an abortion against her will, nor make her carry to term. And so he is deprived of some form of legal right. Right?

That has been true since mankind crawled out of the sea and has applied to all societies throughout history. There are aspects to each one of us that are not necessarily good for the population at large. Of course to Argus the function of paying taxes is the only measurement of use to society. If deaf people pay taxes then Argus will find such lives usefull and worthy of living. If they don't pay taxes they are useless - well, useless to Argus that is. So, no, I don't think Argus is arguing from the position of utilitarianism. He is arguing from the self-centered position of "what have you done for me lately?'

We cannot protect our own sovereignty even at 2% of GDP or 4% for that matter or 8%. .... and yet here we are a sovereign country.

Harper understands that the only realistic and rational means of Canadian Defence is the Munroe Doctrine. No need to spend a dime and tough talk costs nothing.

I think the idea should be helping lawful authority avoid getting into violent confrontations with children

"never hit a dog." - Pavlov

Geez, it's almost like we must never stop buying their stuff - Ever.

Childbirth and nursing a newborn is a vacation now? Maybe upstairs at Downton Abbey.

Scammed how? takin time off to have a child? My goodness, there's something women don't do - take time off work to have children! How dare she?

Cornered nuthing. Waldo's absolutely right. Women can be pregnant and be MP's too. Shocking and immoral? I think not.

Its a silly question. People can study for tests and answer correctly. The question has no bearing whatsoever on their suitability for citizenship. ETA: then, after I've correctly answered the question, I can enrol my kids in the proper religious school and have them taught all about the truth regarding creation and religious text. The question is a pointless exercise in feeling superior.

A sudden desore for property rights to be enshrined in the constitution?

It would be interesting to know what the immediate cause of Mr Bradys death was. If he was struck down by a speeding bus would cause of death still read 'gunshot wound to the head'? On the other hand if the injuries caused by the gunshot 30 years ago resulted in slow deterioration and eventual failure of certain bodily functions - then yeah I guess the coroner would be correct.

Well, 30 odd years after being shot, I'd have a difficult time saying the gunshot killed him.

Sure they should get the help....the problem is how will Canada deliver the aid?

Coroners can rule deaths to be homicides but they have no power to lay murder charges. That power belongs to others.

was the question in the opening . My answer is no.

No. It has mostly - almost exclusively used to extract confessions and to get more 'names' to torture for more confessions.

Jesus wept

By taking action against this country they are - I presume - committing a crime. Punishable by incarceration, just like all Canadians are subject too. Why create special additional punishments for some canadians but not others - solely because they weren't born here?

with the departure of one of the parents (be they biological or step) the financial situation of those children is usually (not always) significantly reduced. This reduction will have serious and significant impact on the childs life and stability. Why you beleive that is an insignificant result is of no concern to the courts is beyond my comprehension.

No longer exists? Why do you think that when one parent severs their relation to the spouse the relationship to the child also ends? Are they one and the same entity?

Oh yes she can. The issue of child support stands alone. When the 'parents (step or not) who BOTH have been providing for the children - as they inevitably do by sharing costs of heat, transport, mortgage/rent, food, clothing etc etc - should those parents split then the courts do not and should not treat the children as inanimate objects with no dog in the splitting up race. But TimG believes the children have no interest. Only the poor step-parent has a financial interest and the courts should ignore any diminishment of support for the children. And the supposed 'hypothetical' case referred to above clearly addressed the point. The case was brought before the courts to determine if the non-parenting agreement would stand. The Alberta court rejected such a thing for the obvious reason: the detrimental effect upon the children involved. INVOLVED - not standing on a shelf somewhere to be dusted off from time to time.

Can-openers? Fishing-rods?