Peter F

Hey, I can be kind to my girlfriends children, I can even buy them a present on thier birthdays. But I think M Chartier did far more than that, Its the courts that determine intention, not the accused. Believe it or not, there are hundreds of men in this country who feel they do not owe thier biological children a dime - even if they have been thier active parent for years - simply to spite the woman that spurned him. Just cause they say 'But your honour, I was never thier parent' doesn't make it true. deadbeat dads Edit to add: So what TV shows or editorials say is the case, may not necessarily be so. It is up to the courts to decide if the role of parent is disputed.

If he has/had taken on a role of parent, then YES. Yes, absolutly. If they have taken on the role of parent then parent they are.

Then be bankrupt. Lack of cash does not excuse any father or mother of thier minimal duty to the child.

Chartier vs Chartier, SCC 1999 Eminantly reasonable. I love the SCC!

As do I. One cannot be a father to a child then choose to walk out on it. No court in the land can force emotional commitment but they can and do force the financial commitment to continue...and rightly so. But I think we have already had this argument before...

I'm wondering under what conditions you would consider child support payments from a non-present biological father to be fair and just.

ScottSA: It's horrid to force a woman to give birth because its horrid to force a woman to be and remain pregnant. It's quite allright to force a man to pay for it because the man isn't paying for the womans pregnancy; he is paying for the support of a live human being. It's enlightened to celebrate a womans choice because we acknowledge that women whole human beings with full control of thier own bodies - just like men. We decry a mans choice to not be a father as "selfish and irresponsible" because he is denying support to a single woman and her child, just so's his bank account can get fatter - That is selfish and irresponsible.

The powerless do not make the rules. BC and Capricorn are right.

It is neat actually. And, yes, I have picked a 'side' and have stuck with it. The side I picked is the side of "A womans right to choose". I'm sticking with it because I find the other sides concept of some abortions are ok but some arn't therefore a pregnant woman seeking abortion must convince a team of doctors or M.Dancer, or you, that her reasons for seeking an abortion are worthy and just. I believe a woman need not convince anybody of anything in regards to abortions. If she wants to end her pregnancy then she need not seek permission of anyone to do so. So, yes, WD, I've never really thought about it... I just woke up that morning with that strongly held belief. Perhaps tomorrow I will wake up and believe something else.

Absolutely.

Any woman need not justify her decision to anyone but herself. There is no call to differantiate between good reasons and bad. There is no defect in the system as it is.

MAD is insane. To be effective it requires the person making the decision to be irrational. A ratonal leader, when faced with an enemy launching a first strike, would not launch the counter-strike. Once the enemy's rockets are on thier way the destruction of the target state is absolutely assured. Launching a counter-strike cannot change that. A counter-strike can only increase the death and destruction without any hope of saving the target state. A rational man would not launch a countrer-strike. A rational man would, in fact, launch the first strike, knowing that the rational leader of the target state would not strike back. To avoid this, MAD was concieved and promulgated, and requires a nations leader to in fact be irrational. It's the only way MAD can work. Irrational leaders are required. I read that in a book somewhere. Can't remember the name of it though.

Any abortion is 'birth-control'. There is no abortion that is not birth-control. Abortions are very effective in ending pregnancy. Condoms are useless at ending pregnancy. So is crossing of the legs. So is having wild unprotected sex. Maybe someday you guys will figure that part out.

Okay. I can swallow that the West threatened to make use of nukes should the Warsaw Pact invade Europe, rather than field a huge army as a deterrent. But I don't see the connection between the threat from the Warsaw Pact and the threat from 'Islamofacists'. The two are not the same at all. Luttwak's entire piece is about the Warsaw Pacts huge superiority in Tanks, men and artillery all massed in East Germany and Czeckoslovakia and how nukes would deter the threatened invasion. What islamofacist army is threatening the same? The use of nuclear weapons against and invading WP army was a militarily sensible, albeit terrible, option in that a few well placed nukes would considerably reduce the strength of the enemy whereas the use of western tanks, men, artillery and Airforce would not. Luttwaks piece is based entirely upon 'conventional' forces. But then you ignore that and claim 'Islamofacists' amount to the same thing as the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, you say, If nukes were good to counter the threat from the Warsaw Pact then nukes are good to counter the threat of Islamofacists. Whats good for the goose may very well be whats good for the gander...but a racoon is not a gander nor a goose.

M.Dancer: lnkplstksbi

Ben Stein: By that logic terrorists are the servants of God and America is working against the will of God.

uh, the press in Canada is loaded with minor inaccuracies. Seems our draconian slander laws don't have the impact on free speach in this country you think it does. Believe it or not, we too have attack ads. Its common knowledge in these parts that Harper has sex with cats and his wife is a crack dealer.

Oh yeah...Or take the ScottSA approach; Ban Islam.

If there are suicide bombers in our midst (be they muslim or not) and you have specific information of who they are then we, not as western liberals but as human beings, inform the police. Other than that we bask in the glory of our western liberalism. There is nothing else we can do and still remain westerm liberals (whatever that means) If you, like me, have no specific knowledge of bombers in our midst then whats to worry about? Remain vigilant, suspect your neighbours, lock your doors and windows.

I get it, jbg. In America its harder to sue somebody for slander and so Americans have more freedom of speach than us peons in the commonwealth. Shall I use my right or left to jerk you off?

OK, so Americans are freer to slander others without putting up or shutting up...any other examples of US superiority for us serfs?

Like this? American medic I think the days of unarmed medics decked out in red crosses have gone the way of the typewriter.

Geography lesson for Topaz: Canada's northernmost point of land: Cape Columbia, Nunavut at 83deg 07minutes North Atlas of Canada - northernmost extremity North geographic Pole : 90 degrees North 1 degree of longitude = 60 minutes of longitude 1minute of longitude = 1 nautical mile distance 90 deg 00 min - 83 deg 07 min (or 90 deg = 5400 min; 83 deg 07 min = 4987 min) 5400min - 4987min = 413 minutes There are 413 minutes of longitude between the Northernmost point of Canada and the North Pole; or 413 nm of distance between Cape Columbia, Nunavut and the Pole. ...all over the waters of the Arctic Ocean and/or pack ice floating in that ocean of which Canada, according to the UN Law of the Sea (which Canada has signed onto) has exclusive territorial jurisdiction over 12nm, leaving 401 nm of ocean between Canadian territorial waters and the North Pole. That 401nm of distance is considered to be international waters. We do not 'own' it and we cannot 'own' it.

That all depends on wether you are NOQUEENSLAVE or noqueenslave.

Ah. Muslims are not mentally capable of accepting liberty and democratic ideals...you should have told the president that way back in 2003.