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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your logic is flawed. Even if we reduced births to 10% of current rates. Those children would need more parental support for longer. As that generation would be more dependent on parental and family bonding due to lack of a same aged community to learn and grow with.
We are a species evolved to have very, very dependent young, rather than most other mammals. This presented up with advantages in the predator / prey fight that is evolution. But it also left our young depended on tribal societies to survive.
Parental leave is just the modern capitalistic equivalent of the tribe coming together to raise its young. It is the recent historic lack of it in many societies and post-industrial revolution that is odd. Not the return.
You as a non parent will eventually need these children to learn to manage the society you live in. Just because you choose to be child free yourself. Does not mean you will not depend on them as adults as you age. As you age you will need educated doctors nurses and Bin men to ensure your life is liveable. Those adults are the very children you think are not your responsibility now.
But unless you are a hermit living entirely on the milk of your own land. (if so you are already not funding this).
Then yes, you and all of us are involved in raising the future population.
Politics not supporting younger voters is not the same as young voters not being political.
Your statistics are not a valid criticism of gen Z. But of our generation and our failure to support the end of FPTP over other issues.
A 2-second look at the fucking fiscal mess we as a generation have left by voting for property prices and removing support for the higher education costs we had. Makes it pretty clear why those opinions exist. They are not a rejection of politics. But a rejection of the politics pushed by our generation of voters.
I am Pretty sure the narcissistic claims about trump are true.
This means he actually believes his insane lies. He trully thinks anyone who disagreeswith him is wrong. And any success they have is due to corruption not valid arguments.
The whole idea that the younger generation is not interested. Is hardly a new one unique to gen Z.
Pretty much every generation since the 1900 has been accused of this.
The only difference is how much change in culture each generation has had to face.
Honeatly pre 1900s. One generation did not face much change from that of their grandparents world. Since then each generation has seen more change then the last. As technical groth has sped up notable even in my 50 plus yeae lifetime. The changes have been notable.
But each generation. As they age a % develop interest in things to a higher level. Little indicates gen z are any different in this.
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.