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

ropebreezy

Joined: 27 Aug 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

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?

OK, but solitary confinement while medical experiments were performed on me is not analogous to being pregnant for 9 months due to rape. This does not convince me that you are consistent to your views on abortion being literally murder.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

I don't care what the goal of abortion opponents is, the fact still remains that the policies abortion-opponents advocate for reduces women's rights. Period.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

Whether or not a person thinks abortion is legitimate isn't the only thing being discussed here. You have a right to that opinion, but a woman also has a right to her body and a right to decide her own future. Forcing her to remain pregnant infringes upon these rights.

And it is an issue of women's rights by virtue of the fact that only women can get pregnant.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

Well obviously the core of the debate lies herein because I argue that fetuses have no rights as an autonomous human being. A woman, however, is an autonomous human being. From these two premises it follows that woman's rights are infringed upon when the state tells her that she must bring to term the fetus growing inside of her.

geldedgoat wrote:

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?

This is a poor, and probably racist, analogy. Promiscuity is way less of an "evil" than slavery. I would think someone who values life and who thinks abortion is murder would heavily promote contraception as a means to prevent abortion, even at the expense of negotiating his or her thoughts on promiscuity and whether it's an immoral thing.

geldedgoat wrote:

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."

But see, if you think abortion is literally murder, then the civic process is not alive and well, it's quite frankly a process of evil that lets people kill children on a daily basis, and should be stopped. Furthermore, there is no indication that abortion will ever be overturned in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed, a person who thinks abortion is murder would recognize that our civic process, while alive and capable, is certainly not well.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

While I agree I think it's outrageously unethical to stand by while thousands of innocent people are killed daily. If children were lined up in the streets and shot, daily, I would be doing something about it. To do nothing but appeal to a civic process that allows this to happen in the first place calls into serious question whether I even value human life or believe the children in question to have human rights.

ReeseDog wrote:

ropebreezy wrote:

Murder is the worst crime a human being can commit.

Says you.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

kabrams

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

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:30 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

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?

You have to forgive me, I was writing a lot at the end of the night, lol.

It's 1,500 maternal deaths per day, 1% of all maternal deaths occurring in developed nations like the United States.

The United States averages about 11 maternal deaths per 100,000.

http://www.who.int/whosis/mme_2005.pdf

1 woman in every 4,500 in the United States has the "lifetime risk of death" if she becomes pregnant at some time in her life.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39642

What exactly is the death risk for a man, exactly?

bucheon bum wrote:

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

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/127547-overview

I focused on the number that didn't include just high instances of diabetes (like the 15% mentioned for Native American women) or low (like the 1-2% mentioned for some white women).

The article itself says 3-8% of all women in first pregnancy. Wikipedia has it at 10 based on a conglomerate of sources. I picked the middle between the two highest.

bucheon bum wrote:

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

Have you ever seen severely damaged post-pregnancy skin? And "having to pee more" != loss of bladder control.

bucheon bum wrote:

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

I never mentioned anything about the pill, but yes, women who have given birth are at increased risk for cancer, specifically breast cancers.

http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/fert_preg_adopt/bc_pregnancy/risks.jsp
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/pregnancy

Underwaterbob wrote:

Pregnancy isn't the boogeyman that kabrams is making it out to be.

Oh, please. Beyond all this rabble rabble the point has been lost. Yet again. It's not about whether or not pregnancy is completely horrible--it's about risks women take that men don't have to take.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:47 pm Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

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.

Whether or not a man can carry a child in his womb is wholly irrelevent to the fact that a man cannot avoid responsibility for a momentary mistake while a woman can.

kabrams wrote:

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.

Yes, the man and women have responsibility for 18 years afterwards. The woman has a legal option to single handedly choose to avoid that responsibility. The man does not. This is unjust sexism that any true proponent of equality should oppose. Given most feminists are not true proponents of equality but rather female partisans who simply want as much benefit for their gender, obviously many of them simply don't care about such inequalities.

kabrams wrote:

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

I'm not taking anything out of the situation. It's simply not relevant to the very simple fact that women can dodge 18 years of responsibility while men can't.

kabrams wrote:

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.

They have less legal control, yes. If a man and a woman sleep together and conception occurs, a woman can choose to avoid having off-spring for which she's legally responsible, while a man cannot. That is a different level of control over one's reproductive activity from a legal point of view, and this imbalance is sexist.

kabrams wrote:

It's not only about the fetus/embryo, it's about her body, FFS.

That's the justification for abortion being legal, but it's in no way a justification for not allowing a man a legally equivalent way to avoid responsibility for an accidental child. Again, if a woman accidentally gets pregnant, she can have an abortion and avoid 18 years of responsibility. If a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant, then he has no equivalent legal way to abstain from responsibility. This inequality is an injustice that only the most sexist of individuals could possibly consider reasonable. Men becoming essentially indentured servants to women because they accidentally impregnated them is barbarous.

kabrams wrote:

Men do not have that responsibility.

Stop talking about the responsibility of carrying a baby, that's a total red herring with regards to the actual case I'm making and you know it. The simple fact is a woman can avoid 18 years of responsibility and a man cannot. This is sexism. If it was the reverse, you'd be screaming about it.

kabrams wrote:

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

It's also about the next 18 years, which you conveniently want to take the focus away from.

kabrams wrote:

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.

It doesn't need to be merely about responsibility for an unborn child to include responsibility for an unborn child. No matter what additional factors are involved, a woman can choose to avoid those 18 years of responsibility, so a man should be able to as well. No one should be indentured to another human being against their will, period.

kabrams wrote:

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.

You try to construe it as ridiculous because you know you have no rational case against it, because it's accurate. Typical feminist hysterics.

kabrams wrote:

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.

Men don't have a choice at all, and that's my point. Women have a choice, men don't. Women can avoid 18 years of responsibility for a mistake, and men can't. This is unjust. You know it's unjust.

kabrams wrote:

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

Agreed, but we're talking about choices availible before birth. Women have a choice, men don't. Men should have a choice as well: the choice to legally abstain from all rights and responsibilities regarding a child. Your eagerness for women to be able to seize a portion of a man's earnings for 18 years as a result of a single night's mistake is pathetic.

kabrams wrote:

WTF are you even talking about here?

This is clearly the first question you should have asked with regards to my entire case instead of knee-jerk arguing with me, because you pretty clearly don't grasp the injustice involved. It's like you learned right and wrong exclusively from women's issues and black issues courses; any injustice inflicted upon a white male is totally lost on you. As Senior correctly diagnosed, it's sexism and racism.

kabrams wrote:

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

The idea that a woman should be able to avoid 18 years of responsibility while a man should not because the woman has an additional responsibility during the first 9 months is just plain silly. And yet, this is your entire case. I'm just going to out and out say it: your case is stupid and wrong. If you've got a better case in your next post, I'll address it. If not, then just assume my response is, "Your case is stupid and wrong." I'm sorry, but I can't be more clear than that, because the idea that a woman should be able to avoid 18 years of legal responsibility for a child while a man should not is stupid, and wrong.

kabrams wrote:

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

Given the immense volume of words I type, yes, I make spelling errors from time to time, especially with regards to words which are slightly phonetically ambiguous. I'm not sorry for it. With regards to the word "retarded," all I can say is it's a proper descriptor and I don't regret using it.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:01 am Post subject:

geldedgoat 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.

I see why people view this as a slippery slope, but I am not convinced it is so. I think consciousness could be a pretty good indicator of humanity. A corpse has DNA, but we don�t spend too much time dwelling on its rights. Now yes, there are some difficulties ethically speaking with people in comas. I for one believe a person should have the right to die. I think we can have a society that is ethically responsible enough to deal with a woman�s right to an abortion and a person�s right to die without fearing a decline in humanity or a descent into Nazi-esque practices. Just because something is permissible does not mean it is accepted.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

I think this is the lynch pin of the whole issue that we will not be able to reach a consensus on at this time (I�m always open to the possibility that I can change my opinion). I don�t see a zygote sharing a majority of characteristics with myself.

geldedgoat wrote:

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

That�s pretty cool. Honestly, I�m too much of a hypocrite to ever fully make the change, but that doesn�t mean I�m not concerned with animal rights. I only recently really felt the moral sway of nonhuman beings.

geldedgoat wrote:

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

The fact that you cannot see how it could ever happen makes me wonder if maybe there is an aspect of humanness/humanity necessary besides DNA.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

Would being pregnant then be similar to being in prison? This isn�t an attempt to mock your position; I�m just not sure how this could ever be actualized.

geldedgoat wrote:

It's no more far-fetched than trying to equate abortion with murder.

I am of the opinion that both are kind of far-fetched, just in different ways.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:12 am Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

While the bit about solitary confinement was superfluous, I fail to see how any other aspect was not perfectly analagous. In both cases an individual's body is taken against his/her will and forced to undergo physiological changes in exchange for the life of a child. If you disagree, please explain why.

Quote:

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

I don't care what the goal of abortion opponents is, the fact still remains that the policies abortion-opponents advocate for reduces women's rights. Period.

You're losing sight of this point. The table insinuates that abortion opponents want women to suffer for excercising their sexual freedom. That speaks directly to their goals. If you don't care about this, then you shouldn't be arguing against my dislike of the language of that particular question.

Quote:

Whether or not a person thinks abortion is legitimate isn't the only thing being discussed here.

Well you have me at a disadvantage, because that's the core of what I was discussing. If we're talking about something else, I'm not aware of it.

Quote:

You have a right to that opinion, but a woman also has a right to her body and a right to decide her own future. Forcing her to remain pregnant infringes upon these rights.

...and aborting an unborn child infringes about its right to life, its right to its body, and its right to decide its own future.

This is a stale cyclical argument, and I would prefer if we could abandon it.

Quote:

And it is an issue of women's rights by virtue of the fact that only women can get pregnant.

As with most things philosophical and moral in nature, hypotheticals are of extreme importance. Hypothetically, a man could get pregnant (as detailed in my previous response). So, hypothetically, he would have as much right (or lack thereof) over his own body where an unborn child is concerned. No one, man or woman, should assume the right to kill another human except in extreme cases like self-defense. So again, it is not merely an issue of women's rights.

Quote:

If you want to make that case, then make it. Why should a fetus not be awarded the status of human? What qualities of personhood does it lack? Or, what additional qualities does it have that makes it so significantly different from Joe Bob down the street?

Quote:

This is a poor, and probably racist, analogy.

Yes, it was extremely racist (that was half the point), but that doesn't make it a poor analogy. You have claimed that because murder is the worst possible moral offense, all other immoral acts (granted, so far we've only covered slavery and promiscuity, but I'm guessing your point applies to anything else) should always be ignored in favor of preventing murder. My analogy, then, is perfectly applicable.

Quote:

Promiscuity is way less of an "evil" than slavery.

From your quotation of evil, I can see you think it anything but (I would agree). How then do you manage to derive the importance placed upon promiscuity by others who don't see it as a dismissable non-evil?

Quote:

I would think someone who values life and who thinks abortion is murder would heavily promote contraception as a means to prevent abortion, even at the expense of negotiating his or her thoughts on promiscuity and whether it's an immoral thing.

Not if that person believes another option is available that doesn't infringe upon his/her moral values.

Quote:

With every major political change on a national level comes an altered stance on abortion. One of the earliest decisions Obama made after taking office concerned the funding of programs that "promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services." This is evidence that abortion policies can and do change, and that working to shift the public's view to match your own remains an option.

Quote:

The choice is not between doing nothing and becoming a terrorist.

Quote:

To do nothing but appeal to a civic process that allows this to happen in the first place calls into serious question whether I even value human life or believe the children in question to have human rights.

To become a terrorist and abandon the civic process that has fostered some of the greatest societies humanity has ever known calls into serious question whether I even value freedom and democracy.

Or, less sarcasticly, social reform through democratic means and the utilization of your freedom of speech is still a viable option, unless a significant number of your supporters turn to terrorism and cause the much less resolute masses to turn against you and your cause.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:29 am Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

Now yes, there are some difficulties ethically speaking with people in comas. I for one believe a person should have the right to die.

I'm not talking about whether or not an individual has the right to die (though as a side note, I agree that this is a good right to have). I'm talking about whether or not people have the right to kill coma patients indiscriminately merely because they lack consciousness, as you seem to be asserting is the case with abortion.

Quote:

I would hazard to guess that a post-menopausal woman with trisomy-21 and CIPA who also happens to be in a coma lacks an equal number of shared characteristics. Should we happen upon someone fitting that description, would it be morally permissible to kill her?

Quote:

The fact that you cannot see how it could ever happen makes me wonder if maybe there is an aspect of humanness/humanity necessary besides DNA.

There are plenty of individuals that society largely agrees is human who are not physically or mentally capable of murder.

Quote:

Would being pregnant then be similar to being in prison? This isn�t an attempt to mock your position; I�m just not sure how this could ever be actualized.

If you read some of the dialogue between ropebreezy and myself, you can see that I've already compared pregnancy (albeit as a result of rape) to slavery.

Quote:

I am of the opinion that both are kind of far-fetched, just in different ways.

I'm okay with you seeing them as equally far-fetched. Differences of opinion do happen. Smile

As a side note, I really enjoy civil discussions and debates like this. It makes it much more likely that either A) I will manage to eventually convince someone else to change their opinion to match mine, or B) I will see my own position as flawed and change it. Both are equally good outcomes.

Last edited by geldedgoat on Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:53 am; edited 1 time in total

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:16 am Post subject:

geldedgoat 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.

I would say that pregnancy begins only after the zygote has implanted in the uterine wall, generally on zygote day 6. I would not consider the woman pregnant for the six days before implantation, and many zygotes fail to implant, and are flushed out with the next menses, the woman never being the wiser. I would not say that she had been pregnant nor had a miscarriage. Neither is human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), the hormone detected in pregnancy tests, produced until after implantation.

Thus, the morning-after pill should not be considered an abortifacient. Pregnancy is not terminated; it doesn't occur in the first place. As such, RU-486 reduces the number of abortions and its use should be supported for that reason.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:22 am Post subject:

Quote:

Thus, the morning-after pill should not be considered an abortifacient. Pregnancy is not terminated; it doesn't occur in the first place. As such, RU-486 reduces the number of abortions and its use should be supported for that reason.

BA, just a minor point of fact, but I don't think RU-486 is the same medication as the "morning after-pill". RU-486, I believe, is usually taken after implantation has occured. From Wikipedia...

Quote:

Mifegyne is sold outside the U.S. by Exelgyn Laboratories, made in France, and is approved for:

Medical termination of intrauterine pregnancies of up to 49 days gestation (up to 63 days gestation in Britain and Sweden)

Softening and dilatation of the cervix prior to mechanical cervical dilatation for pregnancy termination

Use in combination with gemeprost for termination of pregnancies between 13 and 24 weeks gestation

Labor induction in fetal death in utero.[2]

Whereas I think "the morning after pill" usually works as you describe.

link

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:08 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

"The kick is up.....AND IT'S GOOD!!!!"

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:05 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

BA, just a minor point of fact, but I don't think RU-486 is the same medication as the "morning after-pill". RU-486, I believe, is usually taken after implantation has occured. From Wikipedia...

Quote:

Whereas I think "the morning after pill" usually works as you describe.

link

Yes, my error. Thank you for the correction.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:12 am Post subject:

I don't like this issue. There is no easy answer, yet both sides are dominated by jerks who act as if there is an easy answer. I don't really know what my opinion is. However, abortion is legal and that is unlikely to end. Public policy should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy. Free birth control distributed by drug stores without a prescription would be sensible.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:32 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

However, abortion is legal and that is unlikely to end. Public policy should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy. Free birth control distributed by drug stores without a prescription would be sensible.

I believe they do that at family planning clinics already in the US at least. Wouldn't free condoms at drug stores kind of sabotage all the companies charging money for condoms? Those things aren't that cheap, so I imagine even those not particularly in need would opt for not paying money so long as the free version were made just as easily accessible. Then again, maybe more people are married to the novelty brands with the ridges and what have you than I would have thought.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:35 am Post subject:

I was referring to the birth control pill. Condoms can be found for free in many places, but a woman needs to be prepared. A glove is sensible, but a couple 17 year old horn-dogs might not always use one.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:36 am Post subject:

Quote:

I don't like this issue. There is no easy answer, yet both sides are dominated by jerks who act as if there is an easy answer.

Basically, I agree with the point that, if you accept the pro-life arguments, you have to believe that abortion is murder, and should be treated accordingly. There's really no halfway-house on this. If abortion is murder, then you don't make a hero out of doctors who renounce their previous career as abortionists, like the pro-lifers do with Bernard Nathanson, any more than you would make a hero out of Paul Bernardo if he decided to start giving audiotaped lectures against misogynistic violence.

It's a little like animal rights. A simple question: suppose a human baby has fallen, and has injuries that if left unchecked could seriously cripple him, but are not life-threatening. However, en route, the ambulance driver gets radioed about two dogs who have been hit by a car, and will die if they don't get to the hospital within the hour. Who should the ambulance pick up first? If you say that the one human with the lesser injuries takes precedence over the two dogs who are gonna die, then you are clearly not prepared to follow the animal-rights argument to its logical conclusion, then you've just negated the entire basis of the animal rights argument.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:47 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Basically, I agree with the point that, if you accept the pro-life arguments, you have to believe that abortion is murder, and should be treated accordingly.

It's tough. My pro-life stance informs my extreme anti-war opinions, the principle of non-violence and my opposition to capital punishment. I am not able to find a good reason as to why it should not extend to abortion.

Though, my strong commitment to individual rights pulls me towards the position that a woman should be able to remove an organism from her body.

Who knows.

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 6 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