Trying to understand Liberals

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fetuses do not have names. That is because they are not people.

What are the odds that "Tom" is carrying a fetus named "Harry" around in his uterus?

Very slim indeed.

[sirs]

Actually, every woman I know personally, had already named their "fetus".   Sometimes months before its birth.  So much for the "not people" tactic

[Xavier_Onassis]

They have no names until the are born officially. You are talking about PLANNED naming. That is not the same.

And the likelihood of a "Tom" giving birth to a "Harry" (or vice versa) is rather slim.

[sirs]

Not at all, I'm talking about actual names.  They refer to them as this is my little girl Cindy, or this is Matt.

NOT ONCE, has any woman I've known who was pregnant with an unborn child EVER said, this is my fetus

[Xavier_Onassis]

So what?

What are you alleging to prove here?

The point is this: a woman who is pregnant has the RIGHT to give birth or not do so, unhindered by the opinions of people that they do not know, such as you, or me or anyone.

[sirs]

So what?

The what is the person with the name

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oh, who gives a shiite?

Not me.

[sirs]

You really never did.  I'm just providing you the "so what" part.

[Plane]

Oh, who gives a shiite?

Not me.

   When the same principal bites you, you might care.
  The principal that a nameless person is not a person recalls the methods of the final solution , victims were tattooed with a numeral which identified them and doomed them names not needed to kill.

     The next big social problem is geriatric , easy to solve the same way , take the name , issue a number and a person becomes a statistic.
      When Medicare runs out of money and Social Security is running on fumes the promises they represent is to citizens , not nonpersons.

      There will come a day in which second childhood will graduate into second fetushood  and persons unable to prove their sentience will be forfeit their rights as persons and their protection under law.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Pretty much every country in Europe gives women the right to an abortion and not one of them has built any extermination camps.
This is a totally refutable "slippery slope" argument.

Entirely unconvincing.

[sirs]

Actually its very convincing, but as you've already declared, you don't care.  That's why any such convincing commentary will be deemed by you as "not"

[Xavier_Onassis]

Nothing you say is ever convincing.

Jackass.

[sirs]

Good thing you don't care

[Plane]

Pretty much every country in Europe gives women the right to an abortion and not one of them has built any extermination camps.
This is a totally refutable "slippery slope" argument.

Entirely unconvincing.

You do not have to worry about a slippery slope if you are at the bottom of it.  The provision of millions of abortions is an extermination pogrom.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are full of crap. There is no correspondence at all with this.