I totally agree. Compared to other similar genres that give us nothing but are given a high rating because of face cards and popularity of the genre itself, this is low rating. Some dramas in this genre, released this year has a better rating regardless of plotholes and bad writing. Also the loud disappointment from certain individuals full of hate and misinformation make it clear as to why the rating is low and why it doesn’t make sense when the drama + production + acting is good.
Scroll through the comments and reviews, you will have your answer.
Tell me about it. The ridiculous ignorant takes from people who gave this drama a low rating just after watching 2/4 eps is appalling. Idk what they were expecting from a LAW drama in 2025.
it should be. it’s just unnecessary it’s her body no one else’s. haven’t watched any of the episodes yet…
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.)
i wish they addressed the aspect of forced birth in ep 3-4. ofc the child that's already born deserves to live…
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.
We'll have to wait a little longer. Remember the scene from the opening song where FX pins YSL against the wall…
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.
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.
“I don’t hate homosexuals BUT—”Every time a sentence starts like that, it’s already lying. You clearly…
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.
Plus, let's be honest, almost everything on this world is propaganda. You just don't care if it's the propaganda…
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.
Hi! Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your review and your comments on the comment section. English…
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.
You do realize that Korea deals with many of the same social issues that go on here in the US right? Many of you…
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….
Freedom of speech is a human right. It also doesn’t mean freedom from critique. You’re allowed to express…
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.
1
1
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.)
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.
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.
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.