查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 「權衡」胎兒生命權與婦女身體自主權?--優生保健法修正草案之價值預設檢討
- 預防早產之困難與展望
- Thoracoamniotic Shunting for Treatment of Fetal Bilateral Hydrothorax with Hydrops
- Second-Trimester Maternal Serum Levels of Alpha-Fetoprotein, Free β-Subunit of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and CA-125 in Twin Pregnancy after Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction
- Studies on Fetal Hemoglobin and Gamma Globin Gene Triplication in Newborns in Jordan
- Fetal Head Circumference in Normal Pregnancy: Remodeling by Altman's Method
- Prenatal Diagnosis and Postnatal Management of Fetal Neuroblastoma: Report of Four Cases
- Hepatocellular Carcinoma Presenting with Acquired Porphyria: A Case Report and Review of the Literature
- 模糊多準則損益權衡分析法應用於射箭運動員選材之研究
- 黃體素應用於懷孕時會引起胎兒畸形嗎?
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 「權衡」胎兒生命權與婦女身體自主權?--優生保健法修正草案之價值預設檢討=The "Weighing" between the Life's Right of the Fetus and the Right of Women's Body Self-Determination?--To Review the Values of the Presupposition of the Amendment of the Genetic Health Law |
---|---|
作者 | 郭德厚; | 書刊名 | 成大法學 |
卷期 | 16 2008.12[民97.12] |
頁次 | 頁83-131 |
分類號 | 411.91 |
關鍵詞 | 權衡; 胎兒; 婦女身體自主權; 衍生性主張; 超然性主張; 滑坡效應; 生命的挫折; 生命神聖性; 基本權利衝突; 基本權利剝奪; 法律工具主義; Weighing; Fetus; The right of women's body self-determination; Derivative claim; Detached claim; Slippery slope; Life's frustration; Sanctity of life; The conflict between constitutional rights; The deprivation of the constitutional rights; Legal instrumentalism; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 觀察優生保健法修正草案之說明,發現其目的似在於保障胎兒生命權與婦女身體自主權,並同時嘗試權衡這兩種憲法基本權利。惟所謂權衡之前提在於基本權利之間產生衝突,為解決此一爭議始有可能進行權衡。不過,於涉及胎兒生命之場合,所謂權衡基本權利衝突之結果,不僅係一方權利退讓或壓抑其實現而已,而是可能導致生命現象的永遠消失。換言之,權衡之結果已經不是一種對基本權利的限制,而是剝奪其基本權利,此將逾越基本權利衝突理論之基本精神。對此,法律工具主義主張,法律術語並非意指任何實體,而只是作為法律實質圖像之技術性工具以及推論的入場卷。換言之,法律知識之核心其實並非某種想像的實體,而只是一連串的轉譯活動。職是之故,法律術語往往僅作為部分解釋,而無法對所有規範對象予以完整定義。觀察優生保健法修正草案之說明,其嘗試權衡胎兒生命權與婦女身體自主權,惟此一規範訴求不但與基本權利衝突理論相牴觸,而且暗示胎兒生命可能因為保障婦女身體自主權而必須退讓。本文認為,應重新檢討優生保健法修正草案所隱藏之錯誤訊息,切莫以形式上崇高之權利保障修辭,而扭曲基本權利衝突理論之內涵。 |
英文摘要 | The Amendment of the Genetic Health Law claimed that it should be able to weigh something between the life’s right of the fetus and the right of women’s body self-determination in order to protect both of the two constitutional rights. However, the premise of the weighing is that the conflict happens between the constitutional rights. Such method not only disagrees with the theory of the conflict between the constitutional rights, but also accounts for the deprivation of the constitutional rights due to the legal weighing. Anyway, this interpretation has forced us into a corner. I considered that the legal instrumentalism could provide the legal interpretation with a correct direction and positive legal epistemological attitude. The legal instrumentalism claims that the legal terms disagree with any entity, but serve purely as technical tools of legal material picture and as inference tickets. Namely, the core of the legal knowledge is not entity of the certain imagination, but merely let to a chain of activity of translation. The Amendment of the Genetic Health Law claimed that the conflict happened between the life’s right of the fetus and the right of women’s body self-determination. The normative discourse not only derogates from the right of women’s body self-determination, but also hints that the abortion is for protecting the right of women’s body self-determination. I considered that lawmaker should be avert the incorrect thinking in the Amendment of the Genetic Health Law and further changes it. It should not be formally elevated the rhetoric of the protection of the right, or it will be distorted the correct interpretation of the theory of the conflict between the constitutional rights. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。