I feel it is important to clarify evidence.

Numbers 5.21 is evidence of the words in the bible. So that humans who wrote the bible had no compunction with the death od a unborn fetus.

Not in anyway evidence for or against the existance of god. Or its views on any subject.

Science is agnostic. My personal view is athiest

Evidence and understanding its meanong is the difference between the 2.

This is why I habe pointed out several times I am in no way critisising your religion. Just your use of religiose like ideas to proove scientific or lefal points.

That things look the same is not evidence they are the same.

Numbers 5.21

willfully

Don’t have to. They only have to create reasonable doubt.

Unless the accused is somehow proven to or admitted to an act. All they have to do is present another interpretation of what the witness may have assumed was something else.

The whole point is eyewitness testimony is always the weakest form of evidence. Unless this guy was built like a horse. Or the witness was close enough to join in. There is no way to argue the event he is accused of vs the event he claimed.

So all the lawyer has to do is recommend not pleading guilty and suggest other things the witness may have seen.

Not sure about cork law. But England’s laws make it even easier. As the act alone in public is not a crime in itself. You have to prove the participants intended or reasonably expected to offend.

This means not only doubt about the act. But any effort to hide the act would be defence. So it even adds a reason why the accused may have hidden his cleaning the paint roller. Because he worried someone may misinterpret.

Miss interpretation of the law may not provide much defence against a crime. But it can certainly be used to argue the reasonableness of looking suspicious when partaking in an innocent action.

Your acting like you have a point.

You dont.

And I never said anything about uour religion. It has no officialnopinion on abortion. And the bible actually gives guides to do it.

But it is freaking clear you have no idea what evidence actully is.

But non of your opinions give you the right to intimidate people rather then try to change parlimentary votes. And that is the subjeect of this law.

Funny but no.

Its just surgery as a word is way older then our willingness to slice humans and stick our hands in.

We only applied it to that around the late 1800s.

But its forgivable that teenage nations like the US are confused. We as your parents have failed to educate you in many ways.

Haven’t heard anyone caring about the name change since the 1990s. So I’d love to know where you’re seeing it all.

It sounds more like you are whingeing about a private Corporation deciding to sell a very small amount of something to a few older folks using nostalgia. (Literally in Morrisons alone)

And the language you use suggests a desperate need to seek some mental care. While I’ll agree, a large part of my generation (just old enough to remember the pre name change bars) are responsible for voting idiots who do not fund mental health care. It’s been rare over the last 50 years that those parties won with anything close to 50%. So please remember we ain’t all arseholes.

You are misinterpreting my words. And it’s hard to claim not intentionally.

1. I said the law should not be able to force you to make the donation. Nothing at all about your desire.

This is the same as forcing a mother to donate her body and long term health to birth another being. You have no right to intimate her into dong so. And the law has decided the being has no rights until 24 weeks. Where evidence indicates it can survive without the mother.

2. I never made any accusations about your religion or the motive of your actions. Read it again. I said your definitions of life and humanity are no better than religion. IE, they have zero evidence to back them up. Only that of your non-scientific opinion.

Everything you provide argument wise is based on your personal definition of when a collection of cells is human. You do not have the ability to make that judgement. Nor do I and nor has science. But we do have the ability to judge when it is no longer a parasite (hard luck if you don’t like the term, nor do I. But it is technically correct) depending on the will of another being to live. And our laws consider its right to out weight the mothers at that point. Is it up for debate. Of course. But that is in no way the topic of this thread.

Your very first response to me came back with bullshit scientific reasons why my claim your definition of human was unscientific. I have attempted to point out your misapplication of those facts. They are not a scientific answer. They are facts that fail to proove the cells are as you claim an independent human life.

And as I keep saying. While you outright choose to ignore it as you have no answer.

Non-off them give you or anyone who thinks as you do. The right to intimidate people following the law as it is now. That is the only reason the laws announced here have been created. And the only thing those laws stop you doing.

A valid point. But the result is that over a pretty short period of time. These C developers will find delays in how quickly their code gets accepted into stable branches etc. So will be forced to make clear documentation into how the refactoring effects other elements calling the code. Or move on altogether.

Sorta advantageous to all and a necessary way to proceed when others are using your code.

s/after/due to

While your point is correct. Your statement removes all responsibility from the hackers. When cause and effect are still related.

Very Much this ^.

All fines do is force too poor to walk when they cannot afford the fine or other options. If that is the goal, free/cheap access to pools and sports centres as we had in the 70s was a better solution.

If the goal is to stop driving. Points on the licence. And providing practical alternatives.

When we see any evidence that conciseness can even exist at the speed of light. Then the potential of someone’s cells may be argued to outweigh the current desires of a living, independent being.

Until time travel, you are likely to continue to fail to change the law to consider a collection of cells an independent life form before 24 weeks. The rights of the mother, it requires living, currently outweigh those of something unable to survive alone.

Just like my need for a new kidney in no way gives me or the law the right to force you to donate yours against your will.

As for it looking like a human. So does any ape fetus at that time. It has little to do with its total development. Just like when you build the frame of a boat that frame looks boat like. Because all the bits that require a boat to float and run require a frame to be placed in.

Its shape is ion no way a valid argument for its completeness. This is science and law, not art.

More specifically, this is law. And ever since, the ban on abortion was lost. (due to the real death of living humans able to make choices). People of your (no more than religiously defined) opinion have been fighting to change the law. You have failed.

And while you have the right to protest that and feel this way. As I said right at the beginning. You do not have the right to intimidate others following the law rather than protest at parliament to change it.

The value of the law. And your non-scientific definitions of when a human is indeed human. Have no actual relation to the topic of this thread. The history of intimidation of people following the law who do not agree with your views is all that dose.

And if you think they can change people’s mind on those actions by quoting your unfounded ideas.

Honestly, you’re as daft as I am thinking my opinions matter to you. But when you call them scientific. Go fuck off, you are at best uninformed of what the word means and how the scientific process works. And more likely miss informed about the difference between individual facts and proof of a hypothesis being evaluated, challenged and accepted as a theory.

Nor are cells in a womb. Sorta the point,

Cells react to things. Dose not mean it is an independent console being.

If you can proove your cancer moles meet the same standards. Would you still agree with removal.

Old English vs modern. Original meaning was to alter something.

As our political system grew from royal land allocation where Lords were in control of the laws of their own serfs.

Surgeries were how locals talked with Lords abouts altering contracts and management of the land laws etc. More like a court then a town hall.

As we moved to a democratic system and the house of commons gained power. MP took over the job / terms.

In old UK English surgery had 2 meanings.

The common medical one. And a general alteration.

This means MPs and parliment have applied the term to the time our representatives spend gaining input from voters in theiir constituancy. As before commons became powerful it was more a lords of the manner position.

At the time when the position was more royal. IE lords and land owners. It allowed the lords to hear requests for alterations on how they managed the constituancy.

Now its more about a meeting where MPs hear from indevidual voters about issues they can help with.

It’s a first. Bizarre=scummy attempt to avoid responsibility

Pretty sure it’s a case of he found a loophole that allows him to avoid claiming his own fiscal status, using the independence of the company to avoid claiming personnel donations as party donations.

But that’s just a guess based on him being a smug toad in general.

EDIT: Also, that likely only worked until he became an MP. As an actual representative, the separation would be non-advantageous. What with acts in parliment being covered by parliamentary procedure, not legal jurisdiction.

I find it hard to imagine him looking any other way.

If it looks like etc.

Except starmer hasent.

He came forward on his own recognisance in the one occation he relised he had. And reported it to parliment.

The rest of the gifts were all reported and are entirly within the rules.

Cool. Your welcome to feel that way.

But when you intimidate people who disagree with your flawed non scientific ideal of the start of life.

You face restrictions on you right to gather near them.

I will add as a narrowboater.

I found towpaths also have this issue with definition of surface.

I am legally blind. (Some vision but bad)

I have a few times tried to add more ditail to areas of towpath that will help the others like me know what to expect before mooring.

Seems anything that improves this will help in your issues as well.