Ya.
Right after the Supreme Court found it un constitutional.
Anyways, do you have anything at all about the topic, or are you going to change the subject, since you lost?
Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Right after the Supreme Court found it un constitutional.
Anyways, do you have anything at all about the topic, or are you going to change the subject, since you lost?
I was just helping you out ... if you want to change the law, go to your MP, not a judge. Judges interpret the law.
Ya, like I thought, nothing, but since you want to be a child about it...
Main articles: List of Supreme Court of Canada cases and List of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council cases Landmark decisions in Canada are have usually been made by the Supreme Court of Canada, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/
Aboriginal rights
- R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1. S.C.R. 1075
- Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
- R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 SCR 45
Abortion
R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/
Equality
- Egan v. Canada [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513
- Law v. Canada [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497
Freedom of Speech
- Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712
- Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1989]
- R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731
- R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
In case you missed, abd i highly suspect you did, I'm not the one that said that. But yes they do, in a matter of symantics. But I really do not want to argue law with you. Your present legal system of choice, by description of your posts, is somewhere around Draconian. I like the modern legal system, with all its flaws, it beats whatever you would dream up.
Do you have anything to add to the topic, or just more hot air?
Well obviously the remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
Chief Justice of Canada, specifically: "The judge's duty is to apply the law independently and impartially, without fear or favour" are all wrong and you should go find her and tell her she's got it all wrong.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/...pendence_e.asp
Obviously the Chief Justice needs your help to know the duties of a Judge.
And of course nothing at all about the topic of this thread.
Nothing new there, I'll chalk this one up as a win.
Thanx for coming out, hope to see you around the boards. Next time bring the A game, the outcome may wind up in your favour.
TTFN
http://jamesbredin.tripod.com/numberfour/id10.html
Well CNDBear..finding things unconstitutional IS the business of the Judges.
They didn't write the constitution after all. If they didn't want disallowing gay marriage to be unconstitutional then they shouldn't have wrote the constitution as they did.
They didn't write the constitution after all. If they didn't want disallowing gay marriage to be unconstitutional then they shouldn't have wrote the constitution as they did.
So nothing new, just childish crap.
Do you have an arguement?
I didn't think so.
Just that oh so lofty intellect and degree.
Over a dozen posts + no arguement + hysterical nonsense - one lack luster craptoon x Ariadna's degree = toilet paper.
edited to add... If that's is the product of your degree, my 10 year old should be making what you do. Actually more, his are better.
Last edited:
I wasn't arguing that.
Note the OP and first page, it was going well until the hysterical and un-analytical Ariadne showed up.
But if you would like to continue the discussion, I would love to debate with someone that does not let emotion and hysteria rule their thought. Much like yourself.
I see you are very, very angry with me and can bearly contain the insults ... er ... I mean you are bearly able to say anything that isn't an insult.
That's not an insult, that is is an analysis or your posts and the description of what you you posted, nonsensical, hysterical. All the while not addressing the issue at hand, just forwarding your own opinion on but one aspect of it, while smearing, generalizing and expressing less then a basic understanding of the concept of analytical thought.
That's an observation, not an insult. Perhaps your new beau could massage your id.
For a self proclaimed superior intellect, you seem to be having difficulty trying to rebuttle anything I have said, let alone posting an arguement that wasn't based on anything but hysterical missinformation and a biased agenda.
Hmmm?
You go ahead and continue to think that when I, or anyone, argue the viewpoint that: a man that participates in the creation of a child is forever responsible for that child, then we are hysterical, misinformed and biased. Abortion is not an alternative for a huge percentage of the population so prefacing your debate with abortion as an "opt out" choice for women is equivalent to begging the question.
Last edited:
Just a couple of points (I can't believe that I actually took the time to go back through this thread):
A review (and clarification) of the formula, since Ad seems to have forgotten it:
Note: In no way is the male able to force his will on that of the female. He cannot force an abortion or an adoption. The choice is entirely her's. At the same time, the female cannot force parenthood on the male. Force is not used.
Second point: This is a question about the legalities of the current system, not the ethics of it. Obviously if we were talking ethics, the right thing to do would be to support the female in her choice. If that meant raising the kid, thats what it would be. But we are not asking an ethical question, we are asking a legal question. We are asking, is it right for a woman to use the state to force another person to support her decision to keep the child. It is okay for her to hold a gun to his head and take his money. Is it okay to use the state as a hired goon to hold down another person, take his money, and potentially kill him in the process.
Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.
Would you be okay with harrassing, threatening (verbally, and physically), using less-lethal weapons (mace, taser, rubber bullets), using potentially lethal weapons, imprisonment, torture (many people would call what happens in prisons torture), and/or killing the person, in your effort to force him to pay up?
If not, you need to re-think your position because all of these things are possible events and conclusions when you use the legal system to do your bidding.
A review (and clarification) of the formula, since Ad seems to have forgotten it:
Note: In no way is the male able to force his will on that of the female. He cannot force an abortion or an adoption. The choice is entirely her's. At the same time, the female cannot force parenthood on the male. Force is not used.
Second point: This is a question about the legalities of the current system, not the ethics of it. Obviously if we were talking ethics, the right thing to do would be to support the female in her choice. If that meant raising the kid, thats what it would be. But we are not asking an ethical question, we are asking a legal question. We are asking, is it right for a woman to use the state to force another person to support her decision to keep the child. It is okay for her to hold a gun to his head and take his money. Is it okay to use the state as a hired goon to hold down another person, take his money, and potentially kill him in the process.
Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.
Would you be okay with harrassing, threatening (verbally, and physically), using less-lethal weapons (mace, taser, rubber bullets), using potentially lethal weapons, imprisonment, torture (many people would call what happens in prisons torture), and/or killing the person, in your effort to force him to pay up?
If not, you need to re-think your position because all of these things are possible events and conclusions when you use the legal system to do your bidding.
well, that would be simple wouldn't it, as then, as was long ago, women would not have ANY
where to turn for ANY help whatsoever, if the future father of her child did not want to help in
ANY way, so, this conversation wouldn't be necessary, and women would have to gather together
and help each other, as that would be all they would have, with the exception of course, of the
men who were responsible and loving for their children to be, or their partners in sex, and it would
be interesting to know what that percentage would be. hmmmmm! I wonder
I'm sure it would be the desire of many many men, NOT to have the legal system interferring with
their desire to ignore, flee, harrass, control, or even kill the woman who carries the child belonging to
both of them.
Give us all a break, please.
IMO, it's a woman's choice, unless the choice is abortion as a means of contraception (in that case, they should pay their own fare) or something. IOW, if one refuses to be careful, one must accept the responsibility. I have no problem with tax bucks being used for health reasons and whatnot, though.
So the only reason you would support your offspring was because the law makes you? What's wrong with you? Don't you have any sense of responsibility (or morality)?
Let me guess, the only reason you don't go out looting, pillaging, and raping, is because the law frowns upon it? What high moral standards you must have.
You actually think that men want the freedom kill their mates? Wow.
Ahem. Maybe you should actually read what is written instead of having a knee jerk reaction that makes you look foolish.