Peter F

If the father should have a choice then why did you cross out the supposed creative part? the crossed out part is part and parcel of the father having a choice.

I'm not sure what the problem is? I coached just such a soccer team. It is a non-competative league ergo scores are not important. The kids sure tried to keep score and sure tried to score goals - most of them. But the point wasn't to win it was to impart basic soccer skills. Those kids that enjoy the game tend to sign up for the competitive leagues later. And nobody was trying to crush anyones competitive spirit or lecturing them on the joys of dronehood.

I get what you're saying; You're saying that it is unfair to impose a financial hardship on a father for refusing to aid the mother in the raising of the children. You are saying that since the Mother chose to have the child it is therefore the mothers responsibility to raise that child entirely on her own. 100%. The father may or may not support her according to hiswhims. and you're saying that is an entirely fair system. Right?

Oh cmon...it costs the mother some bucks too.

She most certainly does - as does the Father.

Liar. see post #41 of the Motion 312 thread

Absolutely fair. You are still drawing a false equivalence; The male may have no bottom line say wether a woman carries the child to term or has an abortion - influence certainly - but the decision is essentially out of his hands. Your claim is that with the above being the case, The man is owed some sort of counterbalancing power. That assumption is asinine. The power to choose rests with the woman no matter what laws are in existence. All the Morgantaler acquitals demonstrated that fact, which the SCC, in thier wisdom, recognized. There is no counterbalancing right because there is no need for a counterbalancing right. However, once the child is born, then both mother and father have a legal duty to support that child until such time as the child can support itself. Its entirely fair because both mother and father have equal responsibility.

As opposed to being a non-country of 8-10m in an ocean of 350m anglos.

I look forward to Motion 5800 where a parliamentary committee is struck to determine why socks are missing from the dryer

Perhaps so but it isnt homicide and the point of 312 is to make it homicide.

If Asper doesnt own it it must be commie!

Deciept. Motion 312 is not proposing a to study when 'life actually begins' as you state, but is to study if the unborn should be considered legal human beings. I quote the motion: followed by a section about the proposed structure of the parliamentary committee then the motion continues with 'the questions hereinafter set forth' Motion 312 So it is not about when life begins but about changing subsection 223(1) of the criminal code of Canada, which states: I have edited ( to read (bb) because of the damned smileys that creep in for "b" and the same for © to read (cc) Criminal Code of Canada That particular section is the block to those wishing to end abortion. Therefore that particular section in thier minds needs to be changed. Nevertheless, Mr Canadas post is decietful - as is the motion itself - since when human life begins is neither here nor there according to the criminal code which clearly sets out that killing the child prior to birth is not murder.

Ding. Very good point. Pliny advocates for less government and more voluntary co-operation. Who doesnt? Even Marxists did and do. But he seems oblivious to the idea that the volountary co-operation actually resulted in the Residential school system. Hell, the Rwandan killings were volountary co-operation at its worst. There is nothing inherently holy about people doing crappy things to others because they volounteered.

A very good question James. A very good question.

Bullshit. Canadiens were the only people living in Canada. Without them guess what Britain had? bugger all. And thats why they had to keep them happy for so long - they were the only ones here. Shipping them all off somewhere would have been a pointless destructive exercise of folly. And thats why they didnt do it. Hell, the french militia kept the english in check for years and years and it took a major effort by fleet and 3 seperate armies to bring them down. Shipping them all off could very well have resulted in armed resistance that would require another mass invasion by british armies. So there is a very good reason why they didnt disperse the population: The British needed them and they needed them peacefull.

perfectly acceptable actually. I had no problem with it. Though the flashing green was a bit of a mystery for a while odd. got my kids into English school simple as pie. totally acceptable. It was no problem at all. Entirely acceptable. Rather liked it actually.

My reason has already been said. To say the word "stretch"describes the workings of the stars above is (removed) wilfull ignorance.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. ”

or as Martin Luther said: “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. ” and that is where Bestsy is coming from. Reason is the destroyer of faith and is in fact the devils tool

I don't know about the others but I read it and it offered no support whatsoever from modern science. The real laugher was the claim that 'god stretched out the heavens' confirmed and was supported by Einstien theory of general relativity. That was hilarious.

Harpers reaction will make everyone in Canada look bad. Not what he did, you see, but what he will do. I cannot show you what he will do because he hasn't done it yet...very much along your line that whatever Marois does will make Quebec look bad. My point being who gives a shit if you don't like the way Quebecers look. I most certainly don't.

Your students are paying way too much for tuition?

I suppose. and with equal validity, Harpers reaction will make everyone in Canada look bad.

and surely you can understand the desireability of search warrants and such? They aren't there just to protect the cops and only the cops.

Would the courts acceptance of illegally obtained evidence apply only in cases of killings or would it apply to all court cases no matter the crime?