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

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:39 pm Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

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.

If you read my post instead of taking the one remark that specifically targeted something you said, you might have realized that my post may have even helped your case. Let me summarize:

Pregnancy is potentially beneficial. Abortion is potentially risky. Weighing the two against each other, it's possible that it's even in the woman's best interest to carry a child to term, health wise and barring extreme circumstances. If abortion were the healthy choice, then I agree with Fox that a man should be able to also "abort" his responsibility. If carrying to term is the healthy choice, then men should be held responsible since it is in her best interest to have the child... Arrggh, I'm not sure I understand what I'm saying, but it makes sense to me and I've run out of time to type.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:56 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

Alright, that clears things up a bit more since I was unsure of where you were going with the mention of coma patients. No, a person does not have the right to kill coma patients indiscriminately. However, yes, I think there are times where it is morally permissible to end the life of a coma patient.

Perhaps the reason I do not equate an abortion to killing a coma patient is because the former never achieved consciousness while the latter has?

geldedgoat wrote:

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?

That would depend. If there were a consensus of medical opinion that she is brain dead (I�ve read bioethicists who dislike this term) without a chance to recover, then I could see how it would be permissible to end her life. Of course I think the prevalence of CIPA people, and their chances of making it to menopause are so small as to warrant this as an extreme hypothetical.

geldedgoat wrote:

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

Everyone is capable of murder; it�s just a matter of degree.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

No, I�m sorry I haven�t read that dialogue; I fear the first few weeks of this school year have been far too tolling that I�m not able to invest as much time as I may like in this thread.

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

Agreed.

However, I think we may soon reach an impasse. To try and bring it back to a more debatable area, what are your thoughts on abortion legislation?

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

Perhaps the reason I do not equate an abortion to killing a coma patient is because the former never achieved consciousness while the latter has?

So then the loss of consciousness makes an individual human? That can't be right, because that would disqualify you and me as human. It also can't be the ability to lose consciousness, as that would go back to disqualifying the coma patient.

Quote:

Again, I don't mean should she be killed. I mean can we, anyone, kill her to serve an interest not of the patient.

Quote:

Of course I think the prevalence of CIPA people, and their chances of making it to menopause are so small as to warrant this as an extreme hypothetical.

Philosophy and hypotheticals go hand-in-hand. But if that makes it too difficult of a thought experiment, we can discard CIPA. Trisomy-21 (marking a difference in genetics), menopause (marking a lack of reproductive capabilities), and comatose (marking a lack of consciousness) should be enough of a parallel to an unborn child.

Quote:

Everyone is capable of murder; it�s just a matter of degree.

Ignoring those who are physically incapable of committing murder (locked-in syndrome comes to mind), there are others who we largely deem mentally incapable of it. The severely insane and the severely mentally-handicapped are generally considered to lack the willful intent to commit murder (and at least one of those conditions can persist from before birth).

Quote:

geldedgoat wrote:

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.

No, I�m sorry I haven�t read that dialogue; I fear the first few weeks of this school year have been far too tolling that I�m not able to invest as much time as I may like in this thread.

Oh, well, I did, heh. I have no problem with comparisons between pregnancy and forms of servitude.

Quote:

To try and bring it back to a more debatable area, what are your thoughts on abortion legislation?

Can you be more specific?

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:53 pm Post subject:

First of all I�m sorry for the late response; I avoid the Internet on weekends as best I can.

geldedgoat wrote:

Ah, you misunderstood my intention which is pretty reasonable given my lack of development. If I could approach it in a different way, it seems to me that the question hinges on, �What makes a human, human?� My answer would be a combination of consciousness (awareness of being) and conscience (will to be); I guess I'm still kind of stuck in philosophy where these words collapse together. I hope that that is a little bit clearer. The reason why an unborn baby is not like a coma patient is due to its lack of both. It's not an "individual."

geldedgoat wrote:

Again, I don't mean should she be killed. I mean can we, anyone, kill her to serve an interest not of the patient.

I guess that would still have to depend. It seems there are far too many variables to make a blanket statement. I don�t think anyone can kill her, but I think a discussion can be had about it by professionals and relatives on a case by case basis, yes.

It's difficult to say, but yes, I think that there can be a set of conditions in which a coma patient could be killed; but to say what is or is not the patient's "interests" is not so easy. I don't think every coma patient wishes to live, and in some cases I think they can be killed. However, it is not something to be dealt with lightly, and it is a situation where medical experts and those most vested in the patient should decide.

geldedgoat wrote:

Yes, they do often partner up, but no ethical system can satisfactorily stand up to every hypothetical. Look at Kant who spent so much time attempting just that. Just out of curiosity though, why do you add menopause?

geldedgoat wrote:

Oh, well, I did, heh. I have no problem with comparisons between pregnancy and forms of servitude.

Interesting, hopefully I�ll have a free lunch period this week where I can catch up on that.

geldedgoat wrote:

Can you be more specific?

Do you think that a government should allow or prohibit abortions, to what degree and why?

On the other hand

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

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

Hospitals have stopped openly advertising abortions. One gynecologist in eastern Seoul says she turns away patients who call, but quietly accepts them if they show up in person. Another in the city's fashionable Apgujeong district asks for up to $2,000 "to help cover the legal risks," and requires patients to sign a waiver freeing the doctor from liability.

Last month, a woman gave birth and suffocated her newborn to death in a motel room, Seoul police said.

link

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:39 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Last month, a woman gave birth and suffocated her newborn to death in a motel room, Seoul police said.

Here is an excellent PR opportunity for the pro-choice folks out there. Y'all can show up and high-five this enlightened, liberated woman who is freed of the terrible burden of fulfilling her single genetic purpose in life. I think it would also be hi-larious if each of you also high-fived the baby's cold, blue corpse. True comedy gold!

If you feel creeped out by having your ideologies made synonymous with the single greatest abomination that a human being can commit, relax. According to some, killing your children is not infanticide. If you have trouble swallowing that naked lie, just imagine the baby is three-months younger. Certainly, changing someone's age alters their species. Rolling Eyes

[/quote]

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:04 am Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

First of all I�m sorry for the late response; I avoid the Internet on weekends as best I can.

Heh, I also frequently find myself lacking the time and/or motivation to write up these long responses.

Quote:

If I could approach it in a different way, it seems to me that the question hinges on, �What makes a human, human?� My answer would be a combination of consciousness (awareness of being) and conscience (will to be); I guess I'm still kind of stuck in philosophy where these words collapse together. I hope that that is a little bit clearer. The reason why an unborn baby is not like a coma patient is due to its lack of both. It's not an "individual."

A coma patient lacks both a consciousness and a conscience.

Quote:

geldedgoat wrote:

Again, I don't mean should she be killed. I mean can we, anyone, kill her to serve an interest not of the patient.

As of now, abortions can be had by any woman and for any reason. This is the parallel I'm drawing.

Quote:

It's difficult to say, but yes, I think that there can be a set of conditions in which a coma patient could be killed; but to say what is or is not the patient's "interests" is not so easy. I don't think every coma patient wishes to live, and in some cases I think they can be killed. However, it is not something to be dealt with lightly, and it is a situation where medical experts and those most vested in the patient should decide.

Are you in favor of medical experts and those most vested in the patient deciding whether or not an abortion should be viable based solely on the interests of the unborn child?

Quote:

Yes, they do often partner up, but no ethical system can satisfactorily stand up to every hypothetical. Look at Kant who spent so much time attempting just that.

All ethical systems try to make themselves work in every possible hypothetical scenario; that's why moral philosophers so often include bizarre thought experiments in their essays.

Quote:

Just out of curiosity though, why do you add menopause?

Because a post-menopausal woman has undergone a dramatic physical change, so much so that her biology differs greatly in relation to almost every other human younger than her. Also because reproductive capabalities are often used as a qualifier for humanity.

Quote:

Do you think that a government should allow or prohibit abortions, to what degree and why?

I think the government should prohibit abortions unless the life of the mother and/or infant is likely to be in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape. ...because I believe elective abortion to be a morally reprehensible solution to an inconvenient situation.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

A coma patient lacks both a consciousness and a conscience.

1. I already have said that it can be ethically permissible to end the life of a coma patient as well as have an abortion.
2. While I agree a coma patient lacks consciousness in the immediate sense, I do not think they lack conscience. Unless you are a strict solipsist, you must acknowledge that even if a person is asleep, they still have a will.
3. A coma patient has already formed into an individual; a 7 day zygote has not.

geldedgoat wrote:

As of now, abortions can be had by any woman and for any reason. This is the parallel I'm drawing.

True, to an extent. In certain countries yes, but I�d say not in the majority of the world. Even states in the Union (I think you�d mentioned being from the US) do not allow abortions. Also, the number of states that allow an abortion at any time of pregnancy for any reason is rather small.

geldedgoat wrote:

Are you in favor of medical experts and those most vested in the patient deciding whether or not an abortion should be viable based solely on the interests of the unborn child?

I don�t really see how an unborn child could have interests. However, I think the mother and her doctor deciding to have an abortion is already the situation.

geldedgoat wrote:

All ethical systems try to make themselves work in every possible hypothetical scenario; that's why moral philosophers so often include bizarre thought experiments in their essays.

Actually, my favorite ethical system, that of Aristotle�s, does not. Also, I think most 20th century philosophers do not do this (bizarre experiments) anymore, especially after World War II. World War II was equivalent to the earthquake of Lisbon in 1755, especially where ethics is concerned.

geldedgoat wrote:

I would never argue that the ability to reproduce is the basis for humanity. That seems awfully anachronistic.

geldedgoat wrote:

Is this at a state and federal level? What would you define as �danger�, just that which is immediately life threatening? Why is rape an exception?

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

1. Sensible pro-choice people do not enjoy abortions. Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion.
2. What she did is infanticide not aborting.
3. Time/age can change a lot of things, so it�s not that hard to imagine.
4. What does species have to do with anything here?

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:03 am Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

Quote:

Last month, a woman gave birth and suffocated her newborn to death in a motel room, Seoul police said.

Quote:

I do not know the circumstances of the woman in the motel. For all we know, it could have been a case of post-partum psychosis rather than a post-natal "abortion."

Nevertheless, .38 Special has a point. There is not a significant distinction between killing a fetus a few moments before birth and a neonate a few minutes after.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:38 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Nevertheless, .38 Special has a point. There is not a significant distinction between killing a fetus a few moments before birth and a neonate a few minutes after.

This is only true because a fetus a few minutes before birth could survive outside the womb. Abortion being morally permissible is derived from a woman's right to eject a baby from her body, even if it's fatal to the baby to do so. If a baby can survive outside the mother's womb, it stops being abortion and starts being murder to kill it.

Killing a fetus a few minutes before birth is just like killing it a few minutes after, that's true. But aborting a fetus 5 months before it's born is entirely different than killing it right after it's born.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:34 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Nevertheless, .38 Special has a point. There is not a significant distinction between killing a fetus a few moments before birth and a neonate a few minutes after.

While I suppose I agree with this philosophically, we can talk about a 5-and-a-half month fetus, 6-month fetus, etc. There is no clear dividing line, and sometimes we'll get it wrong.

Your formulation approximates current law in which abortion is permissible only in the first two trimesters, right? I suppose as a society we have decided this is the situation we shall live with.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:13 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Fox wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Nevertheless, .38 Special has a point. There is not a significant distinction between killing a fetus a few moments before birth and a neonate a few minutes after.

I would imagine fetal viability outside the womb would vary from baby to baby, and also with the technology availible. I used 5 months as a random example given my suspicion that fetuses generally aren't viable outside the womb at 5 months, but maybe the specific figure in question was wrong. The best test from an ethical perspective would probably be to extract all fetuses alive if there's even a chance at viability (in the estimation of the doctor performing the operation) and try to save them. If you fail, it wasn't viable. If you succeed, it was viable. You can't guess wrong if you don't bother guessing, after all.

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
Page 7 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