Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Korea's abortion crackdown

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Korea's abortion crackdown
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

From what I understand of the morning-after-pill, scientists are unsure exactly how it works. Studies show that the pill stops or prevents pregnancy in one of three ways: 1) preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg, 2) preventing the egg from being released so that it can be fertilized, 3) preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In the third case, this would be the same as abortion, and I would label it as morally impermissible. However, since no studies have been conclusive on exactly which takes place, I remain agnostic on it. I would personally never be a willing accomplice to its use, but I don't believe there's enough science to make a policy or moral decision on it.

For some reason I've been very interested in the state of the morning after pill and its public perception. I think we have differences in opinion, but I'm just curious as to why #1 & #2 are permissible, but not number #3? The one point I hear the most is the interference with nature, which it seems all, 1-3, are equally guilty of. Do you have similar qualms to the "pill"?

Personally, I think that a person should have a right to an abortion, but I think that such things can be drastically decreased with proper education and the erosion of long held stigmas. There is no clear point of origin for life, so to force one's opinion on the matter on to others via legislation is wrong.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:57 pm Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

Feel free to make an actual argument.

Ok...

Quote:

Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?

Quote:

Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequences?

The table begins with these two questions. The obvious implication here is that those who believe abortion should be classified as murder also hold the belief that sexual freedom on the part of women should be punishable. If the second question had been reworded to wanting people who have sex to accept consequences I would have less of a problem with it. As it stands, though, it's a blatant attempt to paint abortion opponents as enemies of women's rights.

Quote:

Pushing contraception and sex-ed on teens is how countries like Belgium have achieved the lowest abortion rates in the world. No one who genuinely thinks abortion is murder could rationally oppose policies that would save tens of thousands of children from being murdered.

Wrong. It's very possible to believe promiscuity to be morally imperssible, oppose legislation that is dismissive of that belief, and still oppose abortion. While "[p]ushing contraception and sex-ed on teens" may indeed lower abortion rates, this does not necessitate the abandonment of other related moral ideals. (Note: I don't have this belief, I just find this claim to be ridiculous.)

Quote:

Banning late-term D&X abortions (or any other particular procedure) will not save a single fetal life, since doctors will switch to other procedures.

This is possibly the most ridiculous part of the whole table. If a ban on one procedure causes doctors to move on to other morally repugnant procedures, then those new procedures should also be banned. This cycle would obviously continue until either no new morally repugnant procedures are left openly available or until doctors are forced to perform previously banned procedures underground. In none of these cases does it make sense to not ban something that is wrong.

Quote:

The other procedures the doctors switch to may have a higher risk of injuring the mother, thus making it more likely that she suffers consequences.

If she does suffer consequences (which she should, assuming you believe abortion to be murder), it's not because she has chosen to have sex (as the question above suggests); it's because she has chosen to murder her child.

While all of the comments under this question are similarly stupid, this one stood out as the worst offender of the lot.

Quote:

If abortion is exactly the same as murder, then abortion in the U.S. is evil on a scale greater than The Holocaust, and people who bomb abortion clinics should be idolized.

What is the moral imperative that demands an individual abandon the civic process, resort to vigilantism and terrorism, and do near irreprabable damage to his cause?

Last edited by geldedgoat on Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

In the first two cases, the egg and sperm have not yet joined, thereby creating a new, unique dna collection. People who oppose these two would also take issue with male masturbation and women who do not make full use of each and every one of their eggs. In the third case, a zygote has already formed. Once this happens, pregnancy has begun, and to stop it would be, by definition, abortion.

Quote:

Do you have similar qualms to the "pill"?

Do you mean birth-control pills? No, I don't.

Quote:

Personally, I think that a person should have a right to an abortion, but I think that such things can be drastically decreased with proper education and the erosion of long held stigmas.

I'm curious, if you don't have an issue with abortion, why would you care about decreasing abortion rates?

Quote:

There is no clear point of origin for life, so to force one's opinion on the matter on to others via legislation is wrong.

Well, we obviously disagree here. It's very possible to point to a developmental stage and label that as the origin of life. The only question would be which developmental stage.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

Personally, I think that a person should have a right to an abortion, but I think that such things can be drastically decreased with proper education and the erosion of long held stigmas.

I'm curious, if you don't have an issue with abortion, why would you care about decreasing abortion rates?

While I'm not Patrick, as someone else who feels abortion should be legal but also would like to see abortion rates decreased, I feel it's reasonable to chime in. I support abortion being legal because I feel the government should not infringe upon our right to determination regarding our own bodies. However, I think it's also obviously true that in many cases abortion results in at least temporary psychological damage to the woman receiving it, and further that it's always tragic when the life of a child clashes with a woman's decisions regarding her own body. As such, while abortion should not be illegal, it is desirable for the abortion rate to be decreased through free will.

I feel the same way about drug usage: the government shouldn't illegalize it, but it's better if usage is lower.

ropebreezy

Joined: 27 Aug 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:04 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

In the case of a rape-resultant pregnancy, a woman has had all of her choices stripped away. Her body has been stolen by another for sex, and it remains out of her control with the pregnancy. To force her to carry the child to term would then be tantamount to slavery.

So temporary (and metaphorical, honestly) slavery is worse than murder?

geldedgoat wrote:

Accepting the consequences is still suffering the consequences, which is still punishing a woman's sexual freedom. And abortion opponents are enemies of women's rights: you are literally taking away a woman's right to her body and her right to decide her future.

geldedgoat wrote:

Yes, but then you're de-emphasizing the gravity of murder. Murder is the worst crime a human being can commit. If a person is unwilling to negotiate his less-serious moral views such as promiscuity for the sake of saving human lives, than this person really holds little value for human life.

geldedgoat wrote:

What is the moral imperative that demands an individual abandon the civic process, resort to vigilantism and terrorism, and do near irreprabable damage to his cause?

But this person is saving lives. Are you saying saving (literally) hundreds and thousands of lives is less important than disrupting society? Isn't stopping someone from killing another person, violently or not, morally permissible? And perhaps it doesn't damage the cause. Perhaps it makes the "cause" even more clear: that abortion really is murder, and if we don't stop it it's the same as just watching people getting killed in the streets.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:01 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

So you consider life to originate when a unique strand of DNA is formed? I�m not going to criticize your beliefs, though I will talk a bit about why I disagree below. Thank you for expounding on your position.

geldedgoat wrote:

I'm curious, if you don't have an issue with abortion, why would you care about decreasing abortion rates?

First of all I would like to point out that I never said I don�t have an issue with abortion.

To answer your question though, I care about decreasing abortion rates for a number of reasons. The fact of the matter is an abortion can be a complex procedure. It can endanger the health and well being of the woman physically. Also, it can, and I imagine often does, have serious repercussions on their mental and emotional health. Pregnancy in general can be well controlled by the individual if they have the tools and the knowledge to do so.

Thank you Fox for chiming in; I think we are in agreement on this issue.

geldedgoat wrote:

Well, we obviously disagree here. It's very possible to point to a developmental stage and label that as the origin of life. The only question would be which developmental stage.

Yes, it is possible to point to a developmental stage and label that the origin of life, but doing so does not make it so/true. There is no general consensus on when life originates, just different pockets of thought.

We do, however, disagree on when life originates. If DNA is the blueprint of life, I cannot consider it life any more than I consider schematics to a building to be a building.

I do honestly understand why you/someone would consider the creation of unique DNA to be the start of life, but we do disagree, and I would never push legislation to make you take action to adhere to my thoughts anymore than I would allow you to do the same to me.

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:43 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Why do you support 18 years of endentured servitude of males based on a single mistake?

If men could carry a child in his womb I would have a different opinion. Until then...I don't.

Fox wrote:

I'm not talking about responsibility regarding carrying a child to term, I'm talking about 18 years of responsibility afterwards. A woman can choose to avoid this responsibility by aborting. A man obviously cannot choose to abort, so he needs an alternative means to avoid said responsibility.

Both the man and the woman have responsibility 18 years afterward. The woman is the only one in the equation who has an extra 9 and 1/2 months of responsibility, on top of any life-long health issues she might have after giving birth.

Thus, a woman's responsibility INCLUDES that of having short and long-term physical changes to her body AFTER birth. Responsibilities that are not shared by men.

Trying to take that out of the equation is not being true to the actual situation.

Fox wrote:

So a woman deserves more control over her reproductive activity than a man deserves over his?

Are you making the statement that men have less control in comparison to women? I'm not sure I understand this statement.

Quote:

That, again, is sexist. If a woman has 9 months to say, "Well, nevermind, I don't want a baby after all," so should a man.

It's not only about the fetus/embryo, it's about her body, FFS. So she not only has to consider the 18 or so years of raising a child, but must also consider the physical changes she experiences for 9 and 1/2 months, plus whatever life-long issues she may have after giving birth.

Men do not have that responsibility.

Fox wrote:

Obviously in a man's case that can't involve an actual abortion, so it instead must be a legal procedure through which he can abandon all rights and responsibilities to a child. After that, the woman can decide what to do.

Again, it's not only about the fetus/embryo, it's about the woman's body during that time.

Fox wrote:

But no, you want to be sure that, should you ever get pregnant, the man must comply with your decision. I'm sorry, but a man shouldn't be stuck being your endentured servant for 18 years because he slept with you for a night, anymore than you should be stuck carrying a baby to term because you slept with him for a night. It swings both ways: either you commit to the responsibility at the moment of sexual intercourse or you don't.

You're coming to the table with an incorrect premise---that choosing to abort or choosing to carry to term is merely about responsibility for an unborn child.

This "commit to responsibility at the moment of sexual intercourse" is so ridiculous I can't even believe you're trying to make this into an actual argument.

So people never lose their jobs? They never become sick? They never become mentally ill or financially unstable? They never become depressed?

Responsibility isn't forcing yourself to do things other people think are right. Responsibility is actually using your brain and making the right decisions for yourself and for your family.

Fox wrote:

The woman can act in such a way so as to avoid 100% of the post-birth responsibility. The man deserves an equivalent choice.

The choice isn't equal. The choice isn't: Man must carry to term + have 100% post-birth responsibility + deal with whatever health issues happen afterward.

The choice is: 100% post-birth responsibility or not.

And, after the mother gives birth, the rights of this new child are equal to that of the mother and father.

Fox wrote:

It's not hard. Why is it so hard for you to see that a woman choosing to abort saves herself from that 18 years of labor, while the man has no comparable option to avoid said 18 years of labor? Why do you feel men should have no way to avoid those 18 years of labor, but women should?

18 years + 9 and 1/2 months + whatever physical problems and instabilities she might experience.

Fox wrote:

I don't give a *beep* about the abortion itself, I'm talking about the ability of a woman to avoid 18 years of responsibility, something women and men are both exposed to. If women can avoid the responsibility, men should be given an equal chance to avoid the responsibility. But you don't like that, because you're a sexist who wants women to retain the legal right to seize a man's earnings for 18 years as a result of a single mistake.

And...you have still missed the point. Yet. Again. *sigh*

Fox wrote:

The hypocritical sexism you're demonstrating in this thread is mind boggling. Again and again I'm reminded why it's called feminism instead of humanism.

WTF are you even talking about here?

Fox wrote:

That's not the reason he called you sexist. It's the things you say that make you a sexist (and for that matter a racist). It's the fact that you think women should retain the right to avoid 18 years of labor raising a child while men should have no equivalent legal option that makes you a sexist. You genuinely believe you should, at any time before giving birth, have the right to avoid 18 years of responsibility with regards to a child, but you simultaneously feel a man should have no similar right. That is text-book sexism. It doesn't matter who is carrying the child, all that matters is that you think a woman should be given 9 months after conception to change her mind about accepting responsibility for a child, but a man should not.

Because a man doesn't have the same physical requirement during and after birth that a woman does.

You're acting as if women and men are starting from the same point. They are not. This entire conversation is full of people who must think pregnancy is just some walk in the park. WTF people, you do know something like 1,500 women die each day giving birth, right, including around 10% of maternal deaths in developing nations like the United States.

Somewhere around 9% of all pregnant women will develop diabetes, and half of those women will have diabetes for the rest of their lives.

Many other women have skin after pregnancy that is stretched and folds over, and will never regain its elasticity. You've got stretch marks, weight gain, deflated breasts, vaginal tears and looseness, permanent loss of complete bladder control. Not to mention the hard to verify yet oft cited differences between being a working mother and a working father.

And we're not even getting into the chemical depression and cancer. Yeah, cancer.

You say it doesn't matter who is carrying the child. LOL, that's the most important part of this situation. Christ-in-a-hand basket, until men can carry a fetus/embryo and bear the burden of what comes along with that, IT IS NOT EQUAL.

Fox wrote:

Can we please save this kind of retarded sentiment for the off topic forum?

Says the Fox who uses words like "retarded" and writes "endentured" servitude more than once.

Rolling Eyes

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:12 am Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

You're acting as if women and men are starting from the same point. They are not. This entire conversation is full of people who must think pregnancy is just some walk in the park. WTF people, you do know something like 1,500 women die each day giving birth, right, including around 10% of maternal deaths in developing nations like the United States.

The US is not a developing nation. 1500 world-wide? And how many are those in actual developing nations? How many people die in car crashes each day? How many people die going to work? How many die from some other medical procedure? And where did you get that 1500 from? And 10% of maternal deaths? What? Wouldn't it be 100%? I'm not really following that 10%. And once again, where did you get that number?

Quote:

Somewhere around 9% of all pregnant women will develop diabetes, and half of those women will have diabetes for the rest of their lives.

Source? And is there a direct link? I mean what % of Americans have diabates? Pretty high % I think.

Quote:

Many other women have skin after pregnancy that is stretched and folds over, and will never regain its elasticity. You've got stretch marks, weight gain, deflated breasts, vaginal tears and looseness, permanent loss of complete bladder control. Not to mention the hard to verify yet oft cited differences between being a working mother and a working father.

So they get less attractive and have to pee more. Noted.

Quote:

And we're not even getting into the chemical depression and cancer. Yeah, cancer.

And your source for cancer is the same source that said the pill boosts your liklihood of cancer? Seriously, what is your source?

I mean having sex can lead to you getting HPV, which also can make a woman more likely to get cancer. Crap, besides veggies, what doesn't lead to cancer??

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

...Crap, besides veggies, what doesn't lead to cancer??

Technically, everything is a little bit carcinogenic, but some foods help the body to get rid of carcinogens.

Back on abortion.

Yes, pregnancy can lead to all kinds of complications and potentially has a whole slew of detrimental effects on health. At the same time there's a whopping boatload (love the scientific terminology) of perfectly healthy mothers out there. There are even numerous, proven health benefits of carrying a pregnancy to term, including reduced risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer kills more women than childbirth (at least in the US). Pregnancy isn't the boogeyman that kabrams is making it out to be.

Abortion can be as detrimental to a woman's health as carrying a child to term. Searching online, it's really hard to separate the facts from the propaganda, but if even a tenth of the supposed consequences are true then it seems that having an abortion is as likely, if not more so, to kill a woman than childbirth. (As long as you don't live in a third world country.)

Regarding Fox and kabrams point of contention: I guess we have to weigh the considerable risks of having an abortion and the potential benefits of pregnancy/childbirth vs a man's right to not be emotionally and financially responsible for 18 years to an unwanted child.

At this point I give up.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/pregnancy
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_1X_How_many_people_get_breast_cancer_5.asp
http://www.afterabortion.org/physica.html

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:21 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

[...]and further that it's always tragic when the life of a child clashes with a woman's decisions regarding her own body. As such, while abortion should not be illegal, it is desirable for the abortion rate to be decreased through free will.

I sometimes forget to consider the perspective of J. J. Thompson adherents. Fair enough.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:31 pm Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

To expound a little further, at no point in the human life-cycle can you point to a particular stage and declare that as the definitive human without suffering vicious moral reprecussions: a teenager is very much biologically different from an toddler, a 30-year-old is very much biologically different from a 50-year-old (especially true for women), a coma patient is very much biologically different from a non-coma patient, etc.

Quote:

We do, however, disagree on when life originates. If DNA is the blueprint of life, I cannot consider it life any more than I consider schematics to a building to be a building.

I do honestly understand why you/someone would consider the creation of unique DNA to be the start of life, but we do disagree, and I would never push legislation to make you take action to adhere to my thoughts anymore than I would allow you to do the same to me.

See above, but also... Some point must be declared the origin of life. Too many moral issues concern themselves with the question to ignore it entirely.

Quote:

To answer your question though, I care about decreasing abortion rates for a number of reasons. The fact of the matter is an abortion can be a complex procedure. It can endanger the health and well being of the woman physically. Also, it can, and I imagine often does, have serious repercussions on their mental and emotional health. Pregnancy in general can be well controlled by the individual if they have the tools and the knowledge to do so.

Should medical technology and understanding advance to the point where the mental and physical health of the mother is no longer an issue, would you still care about reducing the number of abortions?

ReeseDog

Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

Murder is the worst crime a human being can commit.

Says you.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:54 pm Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

So temporary (and metaphorical, honestly) slavery is worse than murder?

A man shows up at your doorstep, threatening to kill an infant in an undisclosed location should you refuse to submit to solitary confinement while he performs medical experiments on you. The legitimacy of his threat is without question and is made with impunity. Are you morally obligated to submit?

Quote:

Accepting the consequences is still suffering the consequences, which is still punishing a woman's sexual freedom.

No, the language is still very different and carries very different connotations. The goal of abortion opponents is not to punish women for their sexual freedom.

Quote:

And abortion opponents are enemies of women's rights: you are literally taking away a woman's right to her body and her right to decide her future.

Again, no. The legitimacy of the right to abort is in question, nothing else. If medical technology advances to the point where men are able to be implanted with a womb and carry a child to term, a man chooses to undergo the new procedure of womb-and-embryo-implantation, then later regrets his decision and wants to abort the child, current abortion opponents would be equally disgusted. It's not an issue of women's rights.

Furthermore, the claim that it's literally taking away a woman's right to her body and her right to decide her future is beyond bizarre. A woman can continue to do anything she wants to her body and decide her future, the same as any man can do anything he wants to his body and decide his future, so long as no action taken infringes on the rights of another. Women aren't being singled out as victims of rights-nabbing; the rights of others must always be considered in everyone's pursuits of happiness.

Quote:

Re-enslaving blacks and other minorities would cut violence and murder within their communities and others drastically. Is that a course of action we should pursue? I mean, murder is a much graver moral offense than slavery, right?

Quote:

But this person is saving lives. Are you saying saving (literally) hundreds and thousands of lives is less important than disrupting society?

In a culture when the civic process is alive, well, and fully capable, forgoing it entirely is beyond reckless... and it has nothing at all to do with "disrupting society."

Quote:

Isn't stopping someone from killing another person, violently or not, morally permissible?

Yes, however...

Quote:

And perhaps it doesn't damage the cause. Perhaps it makes the "cause" even more clear: that abortion really is murder, and if we don't stop it it's the same as just watching people getting killed in the streets.

This is beyond unlikely. If people don't already agree wholeheartedly with your ideas, going on a rampage and killing your idealistic opponents won't draw people to your cause. It will only galvanize them against you, give fodder for your other living opponents*, and marginalize your faction as extremist. See other posts in this forum on Islam.

*I suppose I would have to construct a very different scenario if this hypothetical terrorist somehow manages to kill everyone who supports abortion rights.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

I am personally not as sure as you as to when life originates, but it seems to me that there must be something beyond the mere biological. Perhaps it�s the time that a being can feel pain, or achieves consciousness.

But are there not a number of important differences between a week old �baby� (I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the proper name would be) and all the other biological entities you named?

I agree that there is no morally free point in the life cycle, in regards to your position though, if a life is a life when it has DNA, what is your take on animals and their rights? Feel free to answer only in passing if you�d like. For the record though, I am not some environmental activist, relativist, or even vegetarian, but I�m sure you can see why my train of thought led to the question.

geldedgoat wrote:

See above, but also... Some point must be declared the origin of life. Too many moral issues concern themselves with the question to ignore it entirely.

Agreed. However, if at ~7 days old a �baby� is considered a human being (which was your start point for life), endowed with rights the same as its mother, how else must that manifest itself? Could a child be charged with murder if it kills its mother? If a mother involuntarily does something that leads to the disfigurement or death of her child, should she be charged?

geldedgoat wrote:

Should medical technology and understanding advance to the point where the mental and physical health of the mother is no longer an issue, would you still care about reducing the number of abortions?

That�s an interesting question. The logical, emotionally detached side of me would argue Occam�s Razor, that in such a scenario a simpler act of prevention could avoid the situation entirely.

People have legitimate gripes about abortions, and even though I may not share all of their beliefs, if we can nonetheless decrease abortions and therefore increase those people�s happiness, then I�d still care about lowering abortion rates.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

I know you weren't taking a firm position on this, but I'd like to respond anyway.

"Feeling pain" and "having consciousness" are both poor indicators of humanity. Operating under either of those definitions would leave us free to kill either coma patients or CIPA sufferers at any time and without any moral reprecussions.

Quote:

But are there not a number of important differences between a week old �baby� (I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the proper name would be) and all the other biological entities you named?

There are, and that goes to my point. Because zygotes, embryos, and fetuses all share a large majority of characteristics with various "fully-developed" individuals whom society normally deems human for the purposes of morality, I think it only makes sense to declare a zygote as the earliest "human" developmental stage.

Quote:

I agree that there is no morally free point in the life cycle, in regards to your position though, if a life is a life when it has DNA, what is your take on animals and their rights? Feel free to answer only in passing if you�d like. For the record though, I am not some environmental activist, relativist, or even vegetarian, but I�m sure you can see why my train of thought led to the question.

I'm pesco-vegan for moral reasons (as opposed to health, religious, economic, etc), so I'm very much concerned with animal "rights."

Quote:

Could a child be charged with murder if it kills its mother?

If it knowingly and willfully kills its mother, then yes, of course. Though I don't see how that could ever happen.

Quote:

If a mother involuntarily does something that leads to the disfigurement or death of her child, should she be charged?

Seeing as how we already have laws on the books for neglect and involuntary manslaughter, I see no reason why they shouldn't be applied to expectant mothers and unborn children*. It's no more far-fetched than trying to equate abortion with murder.

*Obviously though, this would have to be proved in the same manner as all cases of neglect and involuntary manslaughter; a woman unknowingly disfiguring or killing her unborn child would not always automatically make her guilty.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe