지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This essay aims to illuminate controversies over legal control of
abortion, particularly from the cognitive interests of criminal policy.
Frankly speaking, the right to abortion has been implicitly overlooked
despite of the fact that abortion is officially prohibited by Criminal
Code, for the Mother and Child Health Law generally exempts abortion
from its criminal liability. Maybe that is why abortion has never
actually been a burning issue in Korean civil society, in comparison to
the ever-so-controversial debate of pro-life vs. pro-choice that
frequently takes place in every election campaign of the West.
Recently, discourse of the reproductive health rights, which is
more or less oriented toward pro-choice, seems to attract the attention
of both the civil society and the academia. However it appears to be
rather biased and somehow even unproductive discourse, since the
current practice of Mother and Child Health Law already supports the
position of pro-choice. Nevertheless such ideas have indeed taken
concrete shape last November, in the proposal of amendment to Article
14 of Mother and Child Health Law.
Probably the most crucial change that occurred to the proposal of
amendment would be addition of social and economic reasons. That is,
to propose official decriminalization of abortion if pregnant woman asks
to do so according to social and economical reasons within 24 weeks of pregnancy. These include social reasons such as adolescence
pregnancy or non-marriage pregnancy, as well as economic reasons
like family plans. To jump to the conclusion, I believe that only social
reasons -apart from economical reasons- are to be approved of
decriminalization.
As far as I am concerned, it seems inappropriate to acknowledge
the discourse of abortion as dichotomy of punished/unpunished. The
aim of criminal policy towards abortion does not lie upon the punishing
of poor young pregnant woman. Criminalization of abortion intends to
implant the awareness of prohibition. However, considering the
prolonged survival rate of embryo due to medical advancement, I
reckon that the 24 weeks limitation should better be shortened. As a
matter of fact, vast majority of countries in the West regulate the
limitation from 10 to 14 weeks in average.
The proposal of amendment also suggests enforcement of a
counseling system: if a pregnant woman wants abortion, she is
required to go through counselling twice before ultimately deciding to
have operation. Despite numerous virtues of this newly invented
system, problems none-the-less remain because of its naiveness. Since
it lacks enforceablity, which would inevitably be crucial element of the
soundness of criminal law, counseling system is very likely to
degenerate into merely a paper tiger, only raising the social and
economic cost of abortion after all.
Therefore we ought to come up with more concrete and
substantial device to restrain reckless increment of abortion. One
possible idea would be to dualize obstetricians- between the doctor
who operates surgery and the doctor who inspects the legitimacy of
abortion. Because of continuous decline of birth rate, it has become a
sort of open secret, that illegitimate abortion acts as one of major profit-making source for many obstetricians. In such cases, scrupulous
observation from government and civil society is very much in need.
What I would like to emphasize ultimately, is the confirmation of
concrete and fundamental principle of prohibition. Moreover, another
point that I had urged to emphasize was that such principle of
prohibition derives not from the empirical, but more-or-less from the
normative. Although sociologists, feminists, counselors or doctors may
as well provide useful empirical data or theoretical backgrounds to the
controversies over legal control of abortion, they cannot and should not
directly affect the specific details of legislation. Criminal policy is
oriented toward educating prudent responsibility for the consequences
of indiscreet desire, by clarifying the principle of prohibition.
This essay aims to illuminate controversies over legal control of abortion, particularly from the cognitive interests of criminal policy. Frankly speaking, the right to abortion has been implicitly overlooked despite of the fact that abortion is officially prohibited by Criminal Code, for the Mother and Child Health Law generally exempts abortion from its criminal liability. Maybe that is why abortion has never actually been a burning issue in Korean civil society, in comparison to the ever-so-controversial debate of pro-life vs. pro-choice that frequently takes place in every election campaign of the West. Recently, discourse of the reproductive health rights, which is more or less oriented toward pro-choice, seems to attract the attention of both the civil society and the academia. However it appears to be rather biased and somehow even unproductive discourse, since the current practice of Mother and Child Health Law already supports the position of pro-choice. Nevertheless such ideas have indeed taken concrete shape last November, in the proposal of amendment to Article 14 of Mother and Child Health Law. Probably the most crucial change that occurred to the proposal of amendment would be addition of social and economic reasons. That is, to propose official decriminalization of abortion if pregnant woman asks to do so according to social and economical reasons within 24 weeks of pregnancy. These include social reasons such as adolescence pregnancy or non-marriage pregnancy, as well as economic reasons like family plans. To jump to the conclusion, I believe that only social reasons -apart from economical reasons- are to be approved of decriminalization. As far as I am concerned, it seems inappropriate to acknowledge the discourse of abortion as dichotomy of punished/unpunished. The aim of criminal policy towards abortion does not lie upon the punishing of poor young pregnant woman. Criminalization of abortion intends to implant the awareness of prohibition. However, considering the prolonged survival rate of embryo due to medical advancement, I reckon that the 24 weeks limitation should better be shortened. As a matter of fact, vast majority of countries in the West regulate the limitation from 10 to 14 weeks in average. The proposal of amendment also suggests enforcement of a counseling system: if a pregnant woman wants abortion, she is required to go through counselling twice before ultimately deciding to have operation. Despite numerous virtues of this newly invented system, problems none-the-less remain because of its naiveness. Since it lacks enforceablity, which would inevitably be crucial element of the soundness of criminal law, counseling system is very likely to degenerate into merely a paper tiger, only raising the social and economic cost of abortion after all. Therefore we ought to come up with more concrete and substantial device to restrain reckless increment of abortion. One possible idea would be to dualize obstetricians- between the doctor who operates surgery and the doctor who inspects the legitimacy of abortion. Because of continuous decline of birth rate, it has become a sort of open secret, that illegitimate abortion acts as one of major profit-making source for many obstetricians. In such cases, scrupulous observation from government and civil society is very much in need. What I would like to emphasize ultimately, is the confirmation of concrete and fundamental principle of prohibition. Moreover, another point that I had urged to emphasize was that such principle of prohibition derives not from the empirical, but more-or-less from the normative. Although sociologists, feminists, counselors or doctors may as well provide useful empirical data or theoretical backgrounds to the controversies over legal control of abortion, they cannot and should not directly affect the specific details of legislation. Criminal policy is oriented toward educating prudent responsibility for the consequences of indiscreet desire, by clarifying the principle of prohibition.
This essay aims to illuminate controversies over legal control of abortion, particularly from the cognitive interests of criminal policy. Frankly speaking, the right to abortion has been implicitly overlooked despite of the fact that abortion is officially prohibited by Criminal Code, for the Mother and Child Health Law generally exempts abortion from its criminal liability. Maybe that is why abortion has never actually been a burning issue in Korean civil society, in comparison to the ever-so-controversial debate of pro-life vs. pro-choice that frequently takes place in every election campaign of the West. Recently, discourse of the reproductive health rights, which is more or less oriented toward pro-choice, seems to attract the attention of both the civil society and the academia. However it appears to be rather biased and somehow even unproductive discourse, since the current practice of Mother and Child Health Law already supports the position of pro-choice. Nevertheless such ideas have indeed taken concrete shape last November, in the proposal of amendment to Article 14 of Mother and Child Health Law. Probably the most crucial change that occurred to the proposal of amendment would be addition of social and economic reasons. That is, to propose official decriminalization of abortion if pregnant woman asks to do so according to social and economical reasons within 24 weeks of pregnancy. These include social reasons such as adolescence pregnancy or non-marriage pregnancy, as well as economic reasons like family plans. To jump to the conclusion, I believe that only social reasons -apart from economical reasons- are to be approved of decriminalization. As far as I am concerned, it seems inappropriate to acknowledge the discourse of abortion as dichotomy of punished/unpunished. The aim of criminal policy towards abortion does not lie upon the punishing of poor young pregnant woman. Criminalization of abortion intends to implant the awareness of prohibition. However, considering the prolonged survival rate of embryo due to medical advancement, I reckon that the 24 weeks limitation should better be shortened. As a matter of fact, vast majority of countries in the West regulate the limitation from 10 to 14 weeks in average. The proposal of amendment also suggests enforcement of a counseling system: if a pregnant woman wants abortion, she is required to go through counselling twice before ultimately deciding to have operation. Despite numerous virtues of this newly invented system, problems none-the-less remain because of its naiveness. Since it lacks enforceablity, which would inevitably be crucial element of the soundness of criminal law, counseling system is very likely to degenerate into merely a paper tiger, only raising the social and economic cost of abortion after all. Therefore we ought to come up with more concrete and substantial device to restrain reckless increment of abortion. One possible idea would be to dualize obstetricians- between the doctor who operates surgery and the doctor who inspects the legitimacy of abortion. Because of continuous decline of birth rate, it has become a sort of open secret, that illegitimate abortion acts as one of major profit-making source for many obstetricians. In such cases, scrupulous observation from government and civil society is very much in need. What I would like to emphasize ultimately, is the confirmation of concrete and fundamental principle of prohibition. Moreover, another point that I had urged to emphasize was that such principle of prohibition derives not from the empirical, but more-or-less from the normative. Although sociologists, feminists, counselors or doctors may as well provide useful empirical data or theoretical backgrounds to the controversies over legal control of abortion, they cannot and should not directly affect the specific details of legislation. Criminal policy is oriented toward educating prudent responsibility for the consequences of indiscreet desire, by clarifying the principle of prohibition.
#낙태
#형사정책
#모자보건법
#선택옹호론
#생명옹호론
#낙태의 사회ㆍ경제적 이유
#범죄화
#출산율
#원하지 않은 임신 '형벌 없는 형법'
#청소년임신
#abortion
#criminal policy
#Mother and Child Health Law
#pro-choice
#pro-life
#social and economic reasons of abortion
#criminalization
#birth rate
#unexpected pregnancy
#criminal code without punishment
#adolescence pregnancy
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (22)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
출산억제정책으로서 모자보건법과낙태에 대한 반성적 접근
법과 정책연구
2010 .01
-
낙태죄 허용한계에 관한 규범해석과 사회인식도
의료법학
2007 .01
-
미국에서의 낙태 규범과 범죄와의 상관관계 분석 연구에 대한 고찰
형사법연구
2012 .01
-
영국⋅미국⋅독일⋅프랑스의 낙태 규제 입법과 판례에 대한 비교법적 고찰
일감법학
2014 .01
-
독일과 한국에서의 낙태의 규범적 평가에 관한 비교법적 고찰
EU연구
2010 .01
-
낙태죄의 존폐에 대한 고찰
한양법학
2011 .02
-
우리나라 유배우 여성의 인공임신중절 결정요인
보건행정학회지
2003 .01
-
우리나라 有配偶婦人의 人工姙娠中絶에 關한 硏究
한국인구학
1986 .12
-
낙태 행위와 관련된 법령의 개선입법(방)안
법과정책
2019 .01
-
Effects of Induced Abortion and Son Preference on the Imbalance of Sex Ratio in Korea
한국인구학
1994 .12
-
낙태의 이슬람적 시각에 대한 소고
지중해지역연구
2013 .01
-
소셜 빅데이터를 이용한 낙태의 경향성과 정책적 예방전략
보건행정학회지
2017 .01
-
형법 제269조 제1항 헌법불합치 결정에 따른 낙태죄의 법제정비 방안
법학연구
2020 .02
-
낙태죄와 임신중절의 문제
법학연구
2018 .12
-
낙태죄의 현실적응력 : 의사의 면허와 관련하여
형사정책연구
2007 .03
-
낙태죄의 문제점 및 개선방향
이화젠더법학
2016 .12
-
낙태죄 제·개정 및 법적 논쟁의 역사: 사회·정치적 맥락을 중심으로
민주주의와 인권
2020 .06
-
낙태에 관한 헌법해석론-미국의 논의를 중심으로
법학논집
2001 .01
-
낙태죄의 허용 한계 사유와 허용 한계 시기에 대한 고찰
동아법학
2018 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0