"Trying to force responsibility" as unwanted duties is "what the left always tries to do". An example is their wanting (demanding as a duty) that you to pay for abortions. But they are not alone.

A "viable fetus" is still only a potential human being and does not have rights.

You also have to be careful about the meaning of "responsible" and not inadvertently concede false hoods. A couple is responsible to themselves for using suitable protection so as to avoid more serious intervention later. They are not responsible to have a child if they don't. The anti-abortionists tend to package-deal those two.

There is no duty to comply with what you demand to impose in the name of "responsibility". There is no "responsibility" to avoid, only a rejection of an arrogant imposition. Abortion is not "murder of an innocent human being". A fetus, an embryo, and the preceding clusters of cells are not "human beings". There is nothing to "murder". Nor is it "innocent": The concepts of guilt or innocence do not apply to such entities -- they are incapable of moral choices.

A woman who chooses to exercise her right not to bear a child has good reasons for it; it isn't frivolous "convenience" of the moment, though that would be her right as well. You don't tell another person to go through the ordeal of bearing a child only to go through another ordeal of putting the child not wanted at all up for adoption, with no regard in addition for how she will always feel about her unknown child out there somewhere.

Your cynically cavalier "pay to play" in the name of "responsibility", vicious rhetoric accusing people of "murder", complete illogic of imposing an entitlement to be born in the name of "human rights" and other floating abstractions (like any leftist), and arrogant lack of concern for what you demand to put the woman through -- sneered away as nothing but lack of "convenience" -- are all vicious and disgusting.

To obtain maximum freedom one needs to embrace maximum responsibility...otherwise someone's gona regulate your ass.

Life begins at conception, Life that becomes aware of it's environment, aware of pain and hunger, begins very soon after that.

That moment needs to be determined and the line in the sand drawn at that point.

Leftest, the global delete, aka, the great unwashed, want you complacent or dead...they can't take the competition.

Really well said.
Also, what's missing is, if they honestly thought that mindless cells are human beings, then opposing abortion doesn't make any sense.
Humans are worthless by their own definition.

"Sex is Not being regulated, have all the sex you want...it's the consequences of that sex that involves another life, an innocent life that played no part in it's making that is at stake."
No, it doesn't. Only the religious left of the conservative movement think sex is just about procreation, when in reality it is far more important recreationally. Legal abortion is crucial to that.

"Today, they may not be having a barbecue but the result is the same."
It is not in any way the same. No newborns are involved with abortion.

"Blarman had it right on his dissertation of the Declaration of Independence."
The Declaration of Independence protects individual rights, including the right to an abortion.
It cannot be used as a tool by religious leftists, to justify turning half the population into cattle.

For example you posted: "But regulating peoples sex lives is the real agenda behind the anti-abortionists,..."

I say that accusation is BS, especially as pertaining to those here in the Gulch.

Also, I have not down voted any of your posts and I wish whoever is doing so would state why.

Greetings, ewv. OK, referencing my "Flip a coin?" question above, you flipped the proverbial coin and the up side results you got was a human embryo or fetus (vs an elephant, fish, or rat embryo or fetus) is a potential, not actual, human being and wrote a post defending the opinion results of the flip. Fine for you.

Another flip and the up side may result opining the event of successful fertilization IS an actual human being whereas potential is the existence of the sperm and egg separately before joining. Assuming there is no concern for the mother here is a false assumption as there is very much concern for the mother, but there is also concern for the child (or children as the case may be). The mysticism of the Catholic Church is irrelevant and I don't care what the pope thinks.

"Not bearing a child is not "murdering children by the millions..." A single mother having an abortion may not have an impact on any civilization, but millions of mothers lining up for millions of abortions carried out to its fullest potential can have a severe impact. Yes, my statement above may be hyperbole, but it was made to illustrate that point.

The most troubling development I see happening now in the legal world is the changing of the definition of what is called a potential human being such that it encroaches more and more into the area of what used to be considered an actual human being. The argument over "trimesters" seems to have been replaced with arguing over whether or not the child is actually born into the world or not. Could it be possible in my lifetime that an unhappy mother will be able to bring her one year old to a special clinic and have it legally put down? It seems as society becomes increasingly collectivist the value of a single individual (other than the ruling elite) becomes less and less and the lives of the children of the "masses" become worth virtually nothing.

Edit: Fixed a typo

Sex is Not being regulated, have all the sex you want...it's the consequences of that sex that involves another life, an innocent life that played no part in it's making that is at stake.
As for religion, the worship of baal in Babylon right up to today commands the new born be toasted upon the fires in the temple.
Today, they may not be having a barbecue but the result is the same.

Blarman had it right on his dissertation of the Declaration of Independence.

New York’s ‘Reproductive Health Act’ brought shock and awe to the entire country, by legalizing full-term abortions, and decriminalizing it. As barbaric as this all is, no one seems to be focused on the nurses and midwives’ addition to this bill, who coincidentally have been trained by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Partners in Health, Planned Parenthood, and the Ivy League schools, for over two decades. While everyone is still trying to catch their breath, the reality of what lies ahead, may unfortunately include unthinkable, sinister acts. Based on past events, actions, and evidence of fetal tissue and body parts being sold, new “youth” blood clinics opening their doors, and prior experimentation on prison babies, it’s time to wake from the shock, and pay very close attention. This is both a physical and spiritual battle – armor up. They just legalized allowing a new born baby to suffer and die outside of the womb, if they did not succeed with the abortion procedure. This is murder in the worst degree.

Regulating people's sex lives certainly has historically been the source. Church dogma demanded that sex only be for procreation and damned pleasure. It coupled that vicious dogma with the belief in a mystic soul deemed to have an entitlement to be physically born. Today that continues and even infects more secular beliefs accepting sex -- with no understanding of the basis for the rights of the individual, people are susceptible to the same mystic fallacy of "rights" as somehow intrinsic to any beginnings of human development (which has now morphed into the presence of dna, which subjectivist morality is pushed in the name of "science"). And they're still trying to regulate sex, demanding that it include "responsibility" to the demands of mystics, even if regulating sex is not always still the primary psychological motive.

Those who are demanding that pregnancy entails a duty to bear a child in the name of "causality" and a conservative duty called "responsibility" -- with no regard for rational moral choices employing different causes to achieve different outcomes -- are echoing the old religious line of duty to God as the ultimate cause that no one dare question or deviate from. Even those whose confusion lies only in the 'intrinsic' notion of human rights mysteriously tied to human cells in the name of "science" invoking dna, "brain activity", "heartbeats", and "twitching when poked" -- none of which are the source of rights -- are a result of the same mystic, intrinsicist philosophy. None of that employs a rational concept of rights based on an objective ethics; it invokes floating abstractions taken from "science" exploited out of context to rationalize old mystic premises, still clung to out of feeling. In the end, the bad premises still lead to regulation of sex in addition to the obvious violations of the broader rights of a woman to choose what to do with her own body.

Fortunately that range of the moment cynicism is not held by the more rational people.

Recent medical advances make it easier to avoid the necessity of abortion. They do not eliminate the problem. There are many reasons to possibly want an abortion without or without contraception (including the fact that it may not work). The vicious morality of the Catholic Church still opposes contraception; the pills don't solve that problem either. Only a rational ethics can do that.

What a sick view of sex and responsibility.

No one is advocating killing babies. Whatever happens to a baby after birth is not abortion and a fetus is not a baby.

The bill does not allow "abortion after birth". There is no such thing. It is a contradiction in terms. The article is dishonestly trying to create an impression that doesn't even make sense.

No, not if you mean life as a human person. A person is essentially different than a fetus or embryo. The concept of rights does not pertain to those. Rights are a moral concept pertaining to human beings, not anything with "brain activity" no matter what it is or how limited, regardless of the presence of human dna.

The right of a woman to not bear a child is not a communist conspiracy to "destroy the culture". The rights of the individual are the opposite.

The "body", i.e., entity, is an embryo or fetus and nothing more, literally parasitic on the woman's body and only potentially a human being if it were to be born. Human life means person, not a group of cells with human dna.

An embryo or fetus is a potential human being, not an actual human being and not a free floating "actual" or "potential" without regard to actual what and potential for what.. For something to be a potential it must exist as something: what it actually already is. That does not give it the status of a possibly later stage for which it is still only a potential. That is not subjective opinion. Only human beings have rights, not potential human beings.

No one said a fetus is "no different" than an infected appendix. An appendix does not have the potential to be a person. They are the same in that neither is a human being and neither have "rights". They are both essentially different from a person. Not every organized collection of (human) cells is a person.

Not bearing a child is not "murdering children by the millions" and has nothing to do with the hyperbole of our civilization allegedly not deserving to survive. The right of a woman to not be forced to bear a child is a right, to be exercised in accordance with whatever reasons she chooses -- without regard for alleged duties to serve civilization, religion or subjective entitlements of an embryo or fetus, and is not "pulling on heartstrings". Rights are moral principles based on the nature of rational beings, not heartstrings. The lack of concern for women throughout history and into the future being forced to raise unwanted children reveals the motives of those who have supported and imposed that. The Catholic Church and may others argued and still argue that a woman has a duty to bear and care for the child regardless of her values and desires. That is supposed to be the justification for forced child bearing, packaged with the mystical notion of a mystic soul at conception that must be allowed to develop. Whether or not today someone else might later adopt a child or whether or not the potential mother would want to turn a child over to someone else is not relevant to the right to not have it and not going through an unwanted ordeal of having it out of imposed duty.

Challenge away. Do you think I give two runny sh*ts what you think? Your "challenge" does not take away the FACT that it's a BABY that is being MURDERED. Say what you want. I don't care. It's still a murdered child.

Fortunately, there are more places that do restrict abortion to something that is much more reasonable than VA and NY, and many of those are not likely to change.

Oh, and at least 1/3 of the words in your last comment are NOT words I used. Stop putting words in my mouth. You seem to think a woman has a perfect right to kill whatever baby she wants, but you don't seem to think it's okay for me to use the words I want to use without you adding to them.

Other way around. Just because you try to claim something in opposition to observable and self-evident facts, does not make them so.
Humans are not mindless cells, nor would opposition to abortion make any sense, if they were.

Pregnancy can be an effect, birth is not a necessary effect, depending on what else happens with other causes. Abortion prevents a birth in accordance with cause and effect: Abort the process and there is no birth. Cause and effect. You have no right to decree that none of that matters. You want to dictate that once something happens, nothing else is allowed in accordance with cause and effect to change the outcome. Abortion can be a rational choice for a woman who does not want to bear a child; it is not "breaking the universe", which is a mystical notion employed to rationalize an imposed unchosen duty while posturing as natural cause and effect. Religious dogma tries to dictate effects without regard to causes while demanding that its victims not be allowed to identify and use causes and effects in pursuit of their own choices.

There is nothing ethical about forcing woman to bear children while falsely accusing them of "cold blooded murder".

No one has a child to breed future voters. It isn't even possible. When adults grow up they choose for themselves.