eighthsense

This is in no way an attack but just a bunch of information.

I need to say this because mixing personal belief with biological fact is misleading and spreads confusion about women’s rights and bodily autonomy.

Biologically, a zygote is a single cell formed by the fusion of sperm and egg; while it contains unique DNA, it is not a physiologically independent organism. It lacks the capacity for self sustenance and exists entirely within and at the expense of the pregnant person’s biological systems.

A fetus (especially in early stages) is entirely relies on the pregnant person’s lungs for oxygen, their kidneys for waste removal, and their blood for nutrients. In medical ethics, the principle of bodily integrity dictates that no person can be forced to use their organs or life sustaining systems to support another entity, regardless of that entity's potential or genetic uniqueness.

Even if we grant a fetus 'moral status,' that status does not grant it a 'right to use' another person's body against their will. Just as we cannot force a person to donate blood, bone marrow, or organs to save another life, even if that person is the only match, we cannot ethically demand that a pregnant person provide their entire physiological system to sustain a fetus.

Saying “it’s its body too” misrepresents biology to create moral equivalence. One body is contained within and sustained by the other. In any other medical context, the host’s autonomy is absolute. To suggest otherwise in the case of pregnancy is to treat the pregnant person as a vessel rather than a person with full human rights.

I agree that the decision is socially, emotionally, and legally complex…..but complexity ≠ tough/justification for control.

Claiming “not everyone agrees” mixes scientific fact with opinion. Facts are not decided by consensus; biology doesn’t change because some people feel differently. Using disagreement as justification is intellectually dishonest. Modern medical ethics, as supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), recognize that autonomy must reside with the individual whose health and life are being utilized.

(The zygote was mentioned to explain the principle scientifically, not to limit the discussion to only early abortion.)

Yes, It is a crime. I mentioned this in my review of this drama. Not only is it “just” coercion, it is also not legal to do so.

In South Korea, medical institutions and personnel cannot refuse medically available care without a "good cause," and denial of care based on a patient's religion or the institution's religious affiliation is prohibited by law. 

Article 15 of the South Korean Medical Service Act explicitly states: "Medical personnel or the founder of a medical institution shall not upon receiving a request for medical treatment or assistance in childbirth refuse such a request without good cause". Violation of this article is punishable by imprisonment or a fine.

Definition of "Good Cause": Legal interpretations of "justifiable grounds" typically include physical inability (e.g., lack of equipment or staff illness) but do not recognise religious or conscientious objection as valid reasons for refusal.

Following the 2019 Constitutional Court ruling that decriminalized abortion, it is considered a LEGAL medical service. Under the Medical Service Act, doctors are legally obligated to provide it if requested, and religious objection is not currently a recognized legal exemption.

“Catholic” hospitals or any hospital CANNOT coerce someone into giving birth. I did learn that they can deny medical service in the west. Maybe this was the western crap people are whining about in the comments. Denying a medical service and sending the patient to another hospital is different from denying medical service and forcing them to give birth knowing their conditions.

Scroll through the comments and reviews, you will have your answer.

Thank god!! There are only 5 eps left, I am scared they will rush it. Historically in bl, redemption arcs are very shallow, ml says sorry and he is usually forgiven.

I hope he won’t be let off too easily

Novel readers spoil this for me, does Fan xiao suffer after this point onwards in the drama?

Either be homophobic or be a dumbass….pick a struggle. Saying only humans show homosexual behaviour is flat out wrong. Bonobos, chimpanzees, dolphins, lions, domestic sheep, and many other mammals engage in same-sex sexual activity for bonding, social hierarchy, or play. Humans aren’t the only ones…homosexual behaviour is natural and widespread in the animal kingdom. And throwing slurs around like confetti? Yeah, that just proves you’re a halfwit who has nothing substantial to say.

Thank you for your perspective. Seeing the reading comprehension of the og commentor, it might be possible that they reply with hate to you. Don’t mind them, I think you’re a great father with humane mindset.

Making extreme statements like “everything is a propaganda” or “everyone is exclusionary at some point” completely misses the point. That’s just deflection. I’m speaking specifically about this drama and the specific topics it addresses. Human rights don’t have to “fit” my personal beliefs for me to speak up about coercion and institutional power.

Sure, everything carries VALUES. Propaganda is a strong word to throw around when you are generalising it this way as there’s a huge difference between media reflecting society and media deliberately erasing or controlling people’s rights. Comparing Pro Bono to heavily censored Chinese or North Korean propaganda ignores context: those are designed to control thought and enforce obedience, often through misinformation. Pro Bono isn’t about forcing anyone to think a certain way, it’s depicting real societal issues, challenging harmful behaviors, and giving visibility to marginalized groups. Calling that propaganda is just a way to dismiss uncomfortable realities while pretending all content is equally manipulative.

If you’re genuinely curious, then engage with the substance of this argument instead of flattening it into absolutes. A personal belief can be something deeply held and serious, like
- Believing alcohol is immoral and choosing not to drink is a personal belief.
- Believing marriage should only be between certain people for yourself is a personal belief.
- Believing sex should only happen after marriage is a personal moral code.
- Believing gender roles matter in your own life is a belief.
- or that your religion defines what you consider moral in your own life. Those beliefs can guide your choices.
Here I’m not criticising anyone for following their own beliefs in their OWN life just because it may or may not ‘fit’ into my beliefs.

Saying women shouldn’t be coerced into pregnancy and queer people deserve dignity isn’t an “ideology” I happen to enjoy, it’s a baseline for treating people as human. When you call that “woke” or “propaganda,” you’re not offering neutral criticism of a drama, you’re dismissing the legitimacy of real people’s lives and rights because they make you uncomfortable. That’s not opinion, that’s denial dressed up as media critique. Human rights don’t become optional just because they clash with someone’s worldview.

If you want answers, stop hiding behind generalizations and address the argument as it exists, not the version that’s easier to dismiss.

If you love this drama, please go read the review i wrote. Use the filter sort by recent and you fill find my thoughts there.

Thank you for your comment!! Im glad you went through this long thread of arguements and had something positive to say. There is a lot of negativity going on under the comment section of this drama page and i couldn’t stand the resoning behind that. That resulted in this long winded review, followed by arguements back and forth. If you see any of those comments in the future, please do recommend them to read this review. I’m open to explain more.

Exactly!!! This is the most tone deaf review I have read, Its a LAW drama? it is supposed to bring out the social issues. Idk where the ignorance is stemming from….

Let’s do a fact check, shall we?
In South Korea, medical institutions and personnel cannot refuse medically available care without a "good cause," and denial of care based on a patient's religion or the institution's religious affiliation is prohibited by law. 

Article 15 of the South Korean Medical Service Act explicitly states: "Medical personnel or the founder of a medical institution shall not upon receiving a request for medical treatment or assistance in childbirth refuse such a request without good cause". Violation of this article is punishable by imprisonment or a fine.

Definition of "Good Cause": Legal interpretations of "justifiable grounds" typically include physical inability (e.g., lack of equipment or staff illness) but do not recognise religious or conscientious objection as valid reasons for refusal.

Following the 2019 Constitutional Court ruling that decriminalized abortion, it is considered a LEGAL medical service. Under the Medical Service Act, doctors are legally obligated to provide it if requested, and religious objection is not currently a recognized legal exemption.

As I was saying, “Catholic” hospitals or any hospitals CANNOT coerce someone into giving birth. I did learn that they can deny medical service in the west. Maybe this was the western crap people were whining about in the comments. Denying a medical service and sending the patient to another hospital is different from denying medical service and forcing them to give birth knowing their conditions. How do you defend forcing a teen to give birth? This is not a question for you, I just want to point out the absurdity in all of this.

So entitled even with their wrong points. As i was discussing under my review, they came at me with full confidence and ZERO logic to back it up.

I too have the same opinion on 4th episode.

I am literally dealing with those kind of comments on the review i wrote explaining how flawed their logic is. Its like talking to a wall.

Yes. I think its all about the audience.

wrote a review and now im arguing with them lol.

A HOSPITAL isn’t a CHURCH. Once religious doctrine dictates medical care, it stops being faith and becomes coercive governance. You cannot use any religious belief to deny someone legally and medically AVAILABLE care. Imagine a hospital adopting a doctrine that says: “No patient with red hair may receive life saving surgery because red haired people are cursed.” Even if some staff personally believe this is divinely mandated, the hospital cannot legally or morally refuse care based on that belief. Denying treatment because of religion like refusing an abortion citing Catholicism, is the same kind of coercion: it imposes ideology over patient rights and safety. Faith doesn’t give a hospital the right to harm or control people.

Calling this “anti-Catholicism” is willfully stupid. The hospital isn’t the villain for being Catholic, it’s the villain for forcing its religious doctrine onto a pregnant teen’s body. Not wanting an abortion for yourself is a belief. Using institutional power to deny medical autonomy is coercion. That’s not “protecting life,” that’s controlling women and then patting yourself on the back for it. If your morality requires stripping someone else of consent, it doesn’t become righteous just because you slap religion on it. Stop confusing faith with authority and discomfort with persecution.

Calling it “not helping to kill a child” is pure emotional manipulation. A fetus is not a child, and pretending otherwise is how you justify stripping a woman of bodily autonomy. No one is obligated to sacrifice their body, health, or future for your religious definition of life. A hospital denying medical care based on doctrine isn’t “morally pure,” it’s abusing institutional power.

You deliberately redefine a fetus as a child to smuggle moral guilt into the argument. If your logic depends on changing medical and legal definitions, it’s already broken.

Infinite concern for a fetus, zero concern for the living person carrying it. Your framing completely erases the pregnant person. The woman/teen becomes an incubator with no agency, health risks, consent, or future….yet you claim the moral high ground.

You call it “saving a child” while outsourcing all consequences: medical trauma, disability care, lifelong responsibility to someone else. This is not ethics, it’s abdication of responsibility.

I’m not here to debate whether abortion is good or bad. I’m saying coercion is bad. If you’re ignoring every point I made just to fit your narrative, that’s on you. I’m not wasting my time repeating the same arguments over and over for someone unwilling to actually think about them.

Saying “people are scared of things that are different from them” may describe reality, but it doesn’t justify it. Fear isn’t a moral shield. Historically, every denial of rights has been defended with discomfort: interracial marriage, women working, disability access, etc. Explaining fear is not the same as excusing it, and criticism exists precisely to challenge irrational fear, not validate it.

“As long as they don’t want to kill anyone, it’s fine.”
That’s an extremely weak ethical standard. Harm doesn’t start at murder. Stigmatization, erasure, shaming, and supporting coercive systems (like forced pregnancy) all cause real harm long before violence enters the picture.

You argue the message should be delivered “without insulting people,” but criticism of beliefs ≠ insult to people. If a devout Catholic character is portrayed as a villain because he enforces beliefs that harm others, that’s not an attack on Catholics, it’s a critique of actions and power, not identity. Wanting every belief treated gently, regardless of impact, prioritizes comfort over accountability.

Claiming that addressing social issues “too aggressively” causes the rise of the right places responsibility on marginalized advocacy instead of on reactionary politics. That logic says: “Tone it down, or it’s your fault people become bigoted.” That’s backwards. The existence of pushback doesn’t mean the critique was wrong, it means it touched a nerve.

You say abortion and homosexuality aren’t ideological, yet you object to their portrayal because it challenges certain moral frameworks. That contradiction matters. If something isn’t ideological, then depicting it isn’t “forcing ideas.” The discomfort clearly comes from whose values are being centered, not from aggression.

Saying “I’m part of a minority” doesn’t automatically make the reasoning sound. Minorities can still hold views that reinforce harm toward other groups. Lived experience matters, but it doesn’t exempt an argument from critique, especially when it downplays systemic coercion or bodily autonomy.

Your argument prioritizes comfort over consequences, fear over reason, and tone over substance. That’s why it falls apart. I’m not attacking people for being uncomfortable, I’m questioning why discomfort is treated as more important than other people’s rights and realities.

Criticizing religious institutions or religiously motivated policies is not the same as calling all religious people evil. Most people aren’t saying “religious people are bad,” they’re saying religion should not be used to justify controlling others’ bodies or denying rights. That distinction matters, and your argument ignores it entirely

Pointing to charitable work by parts of the Catholic Church is irrelevant to the criticism being made. An institution can do good and still uphold doctrines that harm women, queer people, or others. Charity does not negate coercion. Helping some minorities does not excuse policies that strip autonomy from others. That’s not exclusionary, it’s accountability

Being criticized as a belief system ≠ being excluded from society. Religious people are not denied housing, healthcare, legal protection, or bodily autonomy because of online criticism. Queer people and women historically have been. Treating these two as morally equivalent erases real power imbalances.

Saying “everyone is exclusionary sometimes” is a way to avoid distinguishing between punching up and punching down. Criticizing an institution with centuries of power is not the same as marginalizing people who already lack protection. Context matters. Power matters. Without that, “exclusionary” becomes a meaningless word. Citing one compassionate cardinal doesn’t address the broader issue: official doctrine, political lobbying, and institutional influence over laws affecting millions.

Individual kindness doesn’t absolve systemic consequences. That’s like saying a company can’t be criticized for pollution because some employees recycle. You’re reframing justified criticism as unfair persecution to center the feelings of a dominant group, while sidestepping the actual harm being discussed. That’s not nuance, it’s deflection.

Also an opinion for example is whether you like mint chocolate ice cream or not. Whether people deserve basic rights, bodily autonomy, and dignity isn’t a matter of taste. Hiding dehumanizing views behind “freedom of speech” doesn’t make them neutral or harmless, it just avoids accountability. You’re free to speak, and others are free to call out speech that reduces real people to something debatable.