自1970年代開始，「女性生殖（身體）自主權」的呼聲－爭取的主要是所謂的墮胎權－即伴隨著婦女運動的萌芽與發展，而始終具有一定的能見度，甚至成為婦女運動的主要訴求之一；與之相對（或者是對立）的，則是捍衛胎兒（胚胎）生命權的另一方。時至今日，與生殖自主權相關的墮胎爭議方興未艾，仍舊為法律爭議的焦點以及核心議題；另一方面，由於當代的醫療以及科學在技術上的進步與突破，雖一方面賦與了生殖更多的可能性，同時，也帶來了許多亟待解決的問題。無論是已紛擾半個世紀之久的墮胎權爭議，或者是被歸類為新興議題的生殖科技相關議題，概括觀之，這兩項爭議的論辯主軸，皆能夠廣義的包含在「生殖自由」－主張與生殖相關的私密行為，應交由個人自由決定，故必須盡可能地減少任何形式的干涉，以及「對於人類生命（human life）的保護」－主張應賦予任何形式的人類生命最低限度的生命權保障，或者至少為某種生命倫理的概念所約束，因而不應全然地任由個人恣意決定，這兩個彼此相互衝突的上位概念之下。
在《生命領域》（Life’s Dominion）一書的前半部，德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）由墮胎爭議出發，提出超越選擇權（pro-choice）與生命權（pro-life）的折衷觀點，主張無論是懷孕女性或者是胎兒（胚胎），其生命的神聖性與生命的內在價值，皆應納入考量並同時予以尊重，試圖為當代已陷入對立僵局的墮胎爭議，尋求某種和解之道。而康奈爾（Drucilla Cornell）所抱持的後現代女性主義立場則格外強調，墮胎爭議的論辯與解決，必須有女性觀點與意見的加入、甚至必須全盤採納，期能以更設身處地的方式，探討女性在社會以及性別結構中的處境，並聚焦於女性面臨墮胎決定時的兩難困境，為原本中性（neutral）、超然的墮胎爭議，帶入不可忽視的經驗性面向的討論。
德沃金與康奈爾皆分別針對墮胎爭議，提出其各自的看法與意見，而兩者所採取的立場以及所支持的見解，則各有其獨到之處；此外，德沃金與康奈爾在具體的墮胎爭議中所顯現的態度與提出的主張，也反映了德沃金與康奈爾其各自理論在立論基礎上的類似點以及相異之處。比較兩者理論的異同，對於我們以有別於以往的視野，觀照墮胎爭議的論辯－尤其在自主個人與社群關係的連結、針對正義理論所進行的反省，以及對於法律體系的架構與本質所採取的觀點等面向上，格外有所裨益；大致上來說，德沃金乃以自由主義脈絡及其整全性理論為基調，探討上述幾個理論發展的軸線，康奈爾則是以女性主義與後現代的角度，對這些議題進行處理。在針對墮胎爭議而提出的具體主張中，德沃金與康奈爾的相關論述所各自蘊含的深厚理論基礎，不僅開拓了墮胎議題討論的深度與廣度；另一方面，在墮胎爭議的論辯中，德沃金與康奈爾所採取的觀點以及立論基礎，亦提供了我們在處理當代生殖科技發展所帶來的新爭議時，一些重要的思考切入點與紛爭解決的大方向。 / Since the 1970's, the right of women’s reproductive self-determination has been put forward as one of the principal claim along with the developments of women’s liberation movements. Against this stream, those who defend right to life of fetus (embryo) called “pro-life” camp are in opposite position. Up to now, the controversy over "pro-choice" and “pro-life” is still clamoring. Besides, “abortion” as an important subject of debate is also what legal disputes focus on. On the other hand, the progress of the contemporary science, technology, and medical treatments even make reproduction techniques advance, thus create more possibilities on reproduction. Accompanied with such developments, lots of issues about new reproductive technologies are brought about and call for immediate solutions. Arguments on abortion which have assailed for a half century as well as reproductive technologies developing in recent decades and approximately esteemed as newly arisen subjects; in general, whether abortion disputes or new issues of reproductive technologies are both involved in the following superordinate but conflict concepts: First, “reproductive self-determination”, which asserts that all decisions on reproduction should ensue from personal choice and reduce any form of control as possible. Second, "protection of human life", which advocates that human life of any form owns the right to life to a certain extent, thus should be guaranteed.
In Ronald Dworkin’s Life’s Dominion, Dworkin offers a compromised standpoint on the controversy of abortion, claiming that whether the expectant mother or the fetus (embryo) should both be given the respect of "the sanctity of life". Dworkin attempts to attain certain agreement on abortion issues rather than variance. Different from Dworkin’s devoting himself to eliminating the antagonism between “pro-choice” and “pro-life”, as a postmodern feminist, Drucilla Cornell emphasizes on the female perspective, concerning about female’s predicament in the gender structure in particular. While applying her abstract notions to concrete abortion issues, Cornell focuses on the dilemma which nearly every female should confront while making the abortion decision. This insight of Cornell brings the "neutral" abortion controversy into more profound discussions. Dworkin and Cornell state their opinions on abortion controversy respectively, and each of their statement is original and simultaneously reflects different foundations on which their theories are based behind concrete abortion issues. Discussions on similarities and dissimilarities of theories between Dworkin and Cornell not only help to regard abortion issues in a different and brand new way, but also expand the widths and depths of the discussions on abortion disputes: Particularly, the relation between the individual and the community, the gender consciousness which Cornell stresses on, theories of judgments and legal structures, and so on. Broadly speaking, Dworkin proceeds his statements from liberalism and his theory of integrity; on the contrary, Cornell sets out from points of view of feminism and postmodernism. Finally, put issues from abortion towards the developments of the contemporary reproductive technologies, the main foundations and argumentations which Dworkin and Cornell provide for abortion debates may also guide us to deal with issues of developments of the contemporary reproductive technologies.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0926510412 |
| Creators | 洪絹閔, Hung,Chuan-Min |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds