堕胎行为的刑法规制研究——以强制堕胎为视角

我国的计划生育政策于1978年开始实行,此后,我国人口形势经历了转变,即从高生育率到低生育率,计划生育政策的实施使得堕胎已经成为一个日益突出的社会问题。为了实现我国人权保护观念的提升,维护社会道德底线,立法部门应加快立法进程,遏制对胎儿的不法侵害。     

Abortion and legal policy

This paper reviews four legal policies in abortion from a critical theory of law perspective. Since the Comstock era, abortion policy has undergone radical shifts from criminalization in the last quarter of the nineteenth century to decriminalization in the late 1960s, followed by legalization and medical control over the last decade. Yet, until recently, little scholarly attention has been given to the social and political implications of these various policy shifts (almost all studies focus on the current legal phase only) often in isolation from other social and political realities. In this paper we draw on historical, demographic, participant-observation, interview, and documentary and legal materials to analyze the transformations of legal control structures in abortion. This shows both the creation of abortion law, which is imbedded in structures of sexual domination, and the contradictions in abortion law, which express antagonisms in civil society as well as promote alliances within ruling groups. The abortion case further clarifies the failure of legality to transcend existing gender inequalities, thereby contributing to further erosion of welfare rights for poor women and their children.     

Abortion: Models of responsibility

My focus within the topic of abortion is on several models that are used to support the position that a woman has a responsibility to sustain the fetus she carries because she brought about its existence. I consider the following models: a creator, strict liability, fault, and a contract. Although each of these models has been used by opponents of abortion to support the position that women should accept the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse, I argue that none of the models is adequate.This paper grew out of research begun during the 1979 Summer Seminar of the National Endowment for the Humanities led by Richard Wasserstrom. He and other participants in the Seminar contributed to my thinking then and commented later on drafts of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Society for Women in Philosophy and to colloquia at California State University, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Santa Cruz. I appreciate the good suggestions made during these discussions. I also want to thank Sharon Bishop, Donald Burrill, E. M. Curley, Barbara Herman, and Miles Morgan for their helpful comments.