落胎節次規制의 違憲性與否에 관한 硏究 - 美 聯邦大法院 判例를 中心으로 : 落胎節次規制의 違憲性與否에 관한 硏究

최희경(Choi Hee-Kyung) 한국헌법학회 2007 憲法學硏究 Vol.13 No.3(2)

Abortion in the U.S. was legalized by the decision for Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the state laws had the anti abortion law were abolished. However, the abortion right to women had been constitutionally granted by the decisions for Roe case and other subsequent cases, many legislative efforts have been made by the federal and state congresses against the decisions granted the abortion right. Therefore, a detailed review becomes necessary for the procedural restrictions to various abortion cases handled by the state or federal congress in order to see how the right to abortion given to the American women is exercised. This Article examines the unconstitutionality of abortion regulations after reviewing the standards of judicial review on abortion with the decisions made at the Supreme Court in the U.S.A. The concrete types appear in different forms in states, but the informed consent, spouse"s consent, parents" consent to minors, only condition to have abortion at the hospital or keeping the record and reports, and prohibition on the partial birth abortion are considered as regulations. Following problems are found from the example cases of the U.S. supreme court decisions. First, women"s right to abortion are practically restricted from endorsing their right to other family members or medical staffs under various consent clauses to decide who has a right to abortion. Second, the requirement that abortion is only done at the hospital and by licensed doctors increases the cost and becomes a burden on the women economically disadvantaged. Therefore, the intent of the state to protect women causes the opposite result. These requirements practically intervene the constitutional rights of women from increasing the cost and preclude from receiving the professional medical care of the abortion clinic. Third, prohibiting the partial birth abortion punishes the doctors conduct certain abortion methods so that leading the doctors to avoid abortion and causing the actual barriers to exercise women"s right. Consequently, women"s right to abortion is not an absolute right. But even though the Interest to women"s health and life, and the potential life are also to be considered, various procedures to restrict abortion causes the actual barrier to women to exercise their rights. Also, these regulations can make women"s right to be meaningless. Therefore, the U.S. supreme court has decided such requirements unconstitutional to against the federal and state governments regulations to protect women but the criticism is made to some decisions that women"s right has been less considered.

낙태(落胎)의 자유(自由)와 태아(胎兒)의 생명권(生命權)

김래영 ( Rae Young Kim ) 단국대학교법학연구소 2009 법학논총 Vol.33 No.1

Our Constitution provides neither a woman`s right to an abortion nor a fetal right of life. That is the same to U.S. and Germany. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a person in the Amendment 14 and a woman`s privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman`s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, and a pregnant woman has a right to an abortion. But the Court also ruled that a state has a power to regulate on a right to an abortion without undue burden or substantial obstacle. Furthermore, the Court also ruled that when a fetus has viability, a pregnant woman can abort a fetus if only she is in the serious danger of her life or health. On the contrary, the The Germany Constitutional Court ruled that a state is under an obligation to protect a fetus as a human life after nidation according to article 1 (i), 2 (ii) of the Constitution, and a pregnant woman does not have a right to an abortion. Only if she has a proper cause-for instance, in the case of that she is in the serious danger of her life or health-, she can abort a fetus after passing through a consultation with a doctor. Our Constitutional Court does not have a chance to judge whether abortion clauses(article 269 (i) of the Criminal Code which provides a ban on an abortion, and article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act which provides exceptional permitting cause of an abortion) are unconstitutional or not. Whereas there is no case whether a right to an abortion is approved from a right to Self-Autonomy, Our Constitutional Court expressly ruled that a fetus has a right of life. According to the above ruling, we can conjecture that a fetal right of life outweighs a woman`s a right to an abortion. But a fetal life is not equal to a person`s life. A fetus should be estimated as a person only after having independent viability. Thus we ought to acknowledge that a woman`s a right to an abortion outweighs a fetal right of life. And a concurring clause of the Mother and Child Health Act can not survive the constitutional court`s review on the reason of that the concurring clause restricts excessively a woman`s right to Self-Autonomy.

낙태에 대한 헌법적 논의

이병규 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2012 法學論叢 Vol.28 No.-

이 글은 낙태의 헌법적 문제를 생명과 생명권, 인간의 존엄성, 자기결정권 등을 중심으로 고찰한다. 헌법학의 영역을 넘어서 보다 넓은 관점에서 낙태에 대한 헌법적 논의를 시도한다. 낙태는 산모와 태아의 양자관계를 전제로 한다. 태아를 자신의 몸 안에 두고 있는 산모와 산모의 일방적인 보살핌 속에서 그 온전함을 보장받는 종속적 지위의 태아가 있다. 그리고 이 양자는 각각 헌법상 임신중절의 자기결정권과 생명권의 주체가 될 수 있다. 인간의 생명이 언제 시작되는가에 대한 논의를 떠나서 태아가 생명권을 가진다는데 이견은 없다. 이에 반해 산모의 임신중절의 자기결정권은 태아의 생명권 침해를 전제로 하기 때문에 그것을 인정하기는 어렵다. 만약 헌법상 행복추구권에 근거하여 산모의 임신중절의 권리를 인정하게 되면 다음의 몇 가지 문제가 상정된다. 첫째, 산모의 임신중절 자기결정권과 생명권의 대립은 기본권 충돌의 문제가 된다. 둘째, 헌법상 산모의 자기결정권이 인정되면 현재 모자보건법상의 예외 사유를 제외하고 임신 주기와 관계없이 모든 낙태행위를 처벌하는 형법 제269조 부녀의 자기낙태죄 규정과 제270조 업무상 동의낙태죄 규정은 그 위헌성이 문제된다. 셋째, 헌법상 임신중절 자기결정권이 형법상 낙태죄 규정에 의해 제한되는 것은 헌법 제37조 제2항의 기본권 제한의 문제로 볼 수도 있다. 다만 이러한 논의는 산모의 자기결정권의 인정을 전제로 한다. 그러나 산모의 자기결정권은 태아의 생명권의 침해를 전제로 하기 때문에 그 허용은 어렵다. 우리 헌법 제10조의 인간의 존엄과 가치에 기초하는 생명 존중의 원리에 의할 때 태아의 생명권을 보장하고 그 어떤 낙태행위도 태아의 생명권 앞에서 상대화되는 것은 법논리적으로 맞는다. 그러나 낙태행위에 대한 우리나라의 이러한 엄격한 처벌 규정에도 불구하고 실제 일어나는 낙태는 대단히 많은 수준이고, 이것은 일정한 기한 내에는 비교적 자유롭게 낙태를 허용하는 다른 나라와 비교할 때 훨씬 높은 수준이다. 이러한 법과 현실의 괴리가 발생하는 상황에서도 생명권의 절대적 우위를 주장하는 것이 옳은지는 그 논의를 필요로 한다. 임신 초기에는 태아가 완전한 인간으로 진행되는 과정에 있기 때문에 산모의 고통과 절충할 만한 여지가 있는 것은 아닌가 생각된다. 따라서 산모와 태아의 관계에 대한 여러 학설들에 기초하여 현재 대단히 협소한 적응규제형에 방식에 임신 초기에는 기한규제형을 도입하여 양자의 절충을 시도하는 것도 현재 낙태행위를 둘러싼 법과 현실의 간극을 메울 수 있는 방도가 될 수 있을 것이다. 이러한 과도기적 조치가 실효를 거둔다면 현재의 생명권의 절대적 우위의 상태로 복귀하는 것도 가능하다고 할 것이다. This study examines the constitutional issue of abortion, mainly in terms of human life and the right to life, the dignity of human beings, the right of self-determination and so on. It attempts to discuss constitutional matters on abortion from a rather broad perspective beyond the boundaries of constitutional studies. Abortion presupposes the relation between the two, a pregnant woman and a fetus: the former has a fetus in her body and the latter is in a subordinate status whose security is ensured only by the pregnant's one-way care. Moreover, the two can be entitled the subjects of the right to life and the self-determination on abortion, both of which are drafted up on the constitutional right to pursue happiness. There is no doubt that a fetus has the right to life, regardless of the debate on when human life, or personhood, begins. In contrast, a pregnant woman's decision on abortion seems to be unapproved because the decision will infringe a fetus's right to life. Some constitutional issues can be considered on the condition that a mother's right to abortion is approved according to the right to pursue happiness under the Constitution. First, the conflict of the self-determination and the right to life raises the problems with the contrasting basic rights. Second, if a mother's self-determination is approved based on the Constitution, the criminal law that bans all abortions regardless of pregnancy periods, the regulation on criminal autonomic abortion under Article 269, and the regulation on work-related consented abortion under Article 270 can conversely violate the Constitution, apart from exceptive clauses underthe mother and child health law. Third, the regulations on abortion under the criminal law limit the right to self-determination on abortion under the Constitution, which could be regarded as a restriction on the basic rights stipulated in Article 37, Section 2 of the Constitution. But the debate presupposes an approval of a mother's right to self-determination. However, such approval is not easily granted because a mother's right to self-determination will infringe a fetus's right to life. In light of law logic, it makes sense that a fetus's right to life is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Korea based on the principle of respect for life according to the dignity and worth of human beings, and that a fetus's right to life is relatively above any rights to abortion. In spite of such severe punishment, Korea witnesses a large number of abortions performed in reality and it is at a higher level than other countries where in comparison, abortion is freely available within a certain period. Even in the situation that there is a big gap between the law and the reality, it is necessary to discuss whether claims about absolute superiority of the right to life are valid or not. In the early period of pregnancy when a fetus is in the process of becoming a complete human being, there might be much room for compromise between a fetus's right and the agony of a woman seeking to have an abortion. Therefore, on the basis of various theories of the relation of a pregnant woman and a fetus, making a compromise between the two different rights by adopting a period restriction measure in case of the early pregnancy, along with the current adaptability restriction measure which is very limited, could be a key to narrowing down the current gap between the law and the reality regarding abortion. If the transitional step produces actual results, it would be possible to return to the current state of absolute superiority of the right to life.

낙태와 관련한 자기결정권의 행사와 그 한계에 대한 재조명

엄주희,양지현 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2018 성균관법학 Vol.30 No.4

The controversy surrounding the decriminalization of the abortion is running parallel, and the Constitutional Court is pending the case. In the most recent Constitutional Court ruling on abortion, pro-choice and anti-abortion were 4: 4, respectively, and the constitutionality of ban on abortion was maintained. Since the punishment for abortion limits the right of self-determination or the freedom of abortion of the pregnant woman, it is judged that this is a legitimate restriction. The most powerful argument against abortion is the self-determination right of the pregnant woman, which is placed in a confrontational position with the fetus's right to life. The duty of the State to protect the life, the value and necessity of the life protection of the fetus shall be protected by the Constitution. There is no question that any of the pros and cons agree with the appropriateness that we should reduce the abortion rate. There is a common goal that we should consider the right and health of women while saving innocent lives. In the context of the abrupt escalation of the abortion rate, there are serious discrimination and prejudice against single mothers who pregnant and the fact that the responsibility for contraception is passed on to women or the social activities of women are increased, but there is lack of social support for childbirth and nurture. Self-determination is the fundamental right of the Constitution, and it is the fate of self-determination that an individual must freely determine the crucial aspects of his or her life and be accountable for that decision. Self-determination in relation to abortion can be explained by self-determination of pregnancy and childbirth. Since the fetus is the earliest form of human life, it is recognized as an object that is included in the category of right of life. The fact that the life of the fetus is not completely independent and depends on the pregnancy (pregnant mother), that is, the fetus is part of the body of the pregnant woman rather than being independent of the pregnant woman, and is dependent on the body of the pregnant woman. Unlike the problem of conflict, there is a difficulty in solving the problem. Because life or physical infringement of the fetus can be a violation of part of the body of the pregnant woman at the same time. The State obligation to protect the basic rights of people leads to the conclusion that both the protection of the life of the fetus and the protection of the body of the pregnant woman should be done at the same time. Therefore, this study reexamined the formation of the self-determination right of the pregnant women and the way of the exercise of that, and examined the inherent limitations of self-determination right toward abortion and the solution of conflicts of both basic rights. In this way, insights can be referred to in the present situation, which is contesting whether or not the abortion is unconstitutional. 낙태죄 폐지에 관한 찬성과 반대를 둘러싼 논쟁이 평행선을 달려오는 가운데, 헌법재판소에서 이와 관련된 사건이 계류 중이다. 낙태와 관련하여 가장 최근에 있었던 헌법재판소 판결에서는 낙태죄 폐지와 존치가 각각 4:4를 이루어 합헌을 유지하였다. 낙태를 처벌하는 규정이 임부의 자기결정권 내지 낙태의 자유를 제한하고 있으므로, 이것이 정당한 제한인지를 과잉금지의 원칙으로 판단하였다. 낙태 허용을 주장하는 논거 중 가장 강력한 것이 태아의 생명권과 대립적이 위치에 놓이게 되는 임부의 자기결정권이다. 국가의 생명 보호의무, 태아의 생명 보호의 가치와 필요성은 헌법적으로 보호되어야 한다. 찬반 논변 중 어느 것이라도 낙태율을 줄여야 한다는 데는 이견이 없다. 무고한 생명을 살리면서도 여성의 처우를 배려해야 한다는 공동의 목표가 있는 셈이다. 낙태율이 심각하게 높아진 배경에는 피임의 책임을 여성에게 전가한다든지, 여성의 사회활동은 증가한데 비해 출산과 양육에 대한 지원이 부족한 현실과 미혼모에 대한 심각한 차별과 편견 등이 존재 한다. 자기결정권은 헌법상 기본권이면서, 개인이 자신의 삶에 관한 중대한 사항을 스스로 자유롭게 결정하고, 그 결정에 따라 책임을 져야한다는 자기운명결정권이다. 낙태와 관련한 자기결정권은 임신과 출산에 관한 자기결정권으로 설명할 수 있다. 소극적으로는 임부의 의사에 반하여 국가가 임신, 출산, 낙태에 개입, 간섭하지 못하도록 금지하는 것, 즉 의료적으로 낙태를 강제하거나, 임신⋅출산을 하거나 하지 못하도록 강제하는 조치를 금지하는 것이다. 적극적으로는 임신, 출산, 낙태에 대해 결정하는 것으로서 이에 대한 의료에 접근할 권리이다. 태아는 인간생명의 초기 형태이므로 생명권의 보호의 범주에 포함되는 객체로서 인정된다. 태아의 생명은 완전히 독립적이지 않고 임부에 의존할 수밖에 없다는 점, 즉 태아는 임부에게도 독립적인 타인이 아니라 임부의 신체의 일부를 이루기도 하고, 임부의 신체에 의존하고 있다는 점에서 독립된 개인들 간의 기본권 상충의 문제와 다르게 문제 해결의 어려움이 있다. 태아에 대한 생명이나 신체 침해는 동시에 임부의 신체의 일부에 대한 침해가 될 수 있기 때문이다. 국가의 기본권 보호 의무는 태아의 생명에 대한 보호와 함께 임부의 신체에 대한 보호가 동시에 이루어져야 한다는 귀결로 이어진다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 임부의 자기결정권의 형성과 그 행사의 모습을 재조명하였고, 낙태 문제에서 자기결정권이 가지는 내재적 한계와 기본권의 상충 상황에 대한 해결방법을 살펴보았다. 그럼으로써 낙태죄 위헌여부를 다투고 있는 현 상황에서 참조할 만한 통찰을 제시하였다.

낙태와 헌법해석

전상현 법과사회이론학회 2020 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.63

At the stage of defining the scope of ​​protection of constitutional right, whether it infringes other legal interests does not need to be considered. Therefore, abortions that infringe the life of the fetus are also included in the scope of ​​protection of constitutional rights. The abortion is protected by the right of self-determination. Since the right of self-determination is derived from the dignity of human beings, Article 10 of the Constitution, its protected scope must be of an essential and important condition of human dignity. In this respect, it is distinguished from the scope of protection of the right to general action, which derives from the right to happiness. In understanding self-determination in this way, there is little benefit in distinguishing the right to self-determination of one's destiny from the right to self-determination. The Constitutional Court previously viewed abortion on the issue on the right to self-determination of one's destiny, but in a recent decision, on the issue of the right to self-determination. Abortion is the most typical case of the conflict of constitutional rights. Although the Constitutional Court has examined “the conflicts of constitutional rights” in the cases concerning judicial review on constitutionality of statutes, the Constitutional Court rejected the application of “the conflicts of constitutional rights” on the abortion-case which seems to be the most typical case of “the conflicts of constitutional rights.” Some scholars argue that it is meaningless to apply “the conflict of constitutional rights” to the cases concerning judicial review on constitutionality of statutes because it should be applied by the principle of proportionality. But the principle of proportional does not fit the cases of the conflict of constitutional rights. Therefore on such a case as of abortion, the Constitutional Court should consider and apply “the conflicts of constitutional rights.” Some argue that the abortion controversy is more likely to be resolved through a political process than through judicial review as a matter of religious and ethical value judgment. However, when a problem such as abortion is left to the political process, a situation in which the values of the majority of the society are imposed on the minority may occur, and the political compromise itself may not be made. Therefore, judicial decision is necessary for cases such as abortion. However, in cases where religious and ethical value judgments have a significant effect, it can be difficult to distinguish a judge's subjective value judgment from the interpretation of Constitution. In order to avoid a decision made by a judge’s value judgment, it is required for the judge to give reasons grounded on the provisions of the Constitution, the principles of the Constitution and precedents. 기본권 보호영역의 설정은 기본권제한의 정당화와는 구별되므로 기본권 보호영역을 정하는 단계에서는 다른 법익에 대한 침해 여부는 고려될 필요가 없다. 따라서 태아의 생명을 침해하는 낙태도 기본권의 보호영역에 포함된다. 낙태로 인해 제한되는 기본권은 자기결정권이다. 자기결정권은 헌법 제10조 제1문의 인간존엄으로부터 도출되므로 그 보호영역은 인간존엄의 본질적이고도 핵심적인 조건들에 관한 것이어야 한다. 이 점에서 행복추구권에서 파생되는 일반적 행동자유권의 보호영역과 구별된다. 자기결정권을 이와 같이 이해할 때, 자기운명결정권과 자기결정권을 구별할 실익은 거의 없다. 헌법재판소는 종전에 낙태를 자기운명결정권 문제로 보았다가 최근 결정에서 자기결정권 문제로 보았다. 낙태는 가장 전형적인 기본권충돌 사안이다. 헌법재판소는 그동안 법률의 위헌심사에서 기본권충돌을 검토해 왔고 그 해결방법도 제시해 왔으나, 가장 전형적인 기본권충돌 사례라고 할 낙태 사안에서는 ‘법률의 위헌심사는 과잉금지원칙이 적용되므로 기본권충돌을 논하는 것은 잘못’이라고 하여 기본권충돌 논의를 회피하였다. 법률의 위헌심사에서는 과잉금지원칙이 적용되므로 기본권충돌 논의는 무의미하다는 견해도 있지만, 기본권충돌은 공익이 아니라 구체적인 기본권이 보호대상이고, 따라서 제한되는 기본권에 대한 최소침해를 요구하는 것이 적절하지 않고 법익형량도 기본권과 공익이 아니라 기본권들 간의 형량이라는 점에서 일반적인 과잉금지원칙을 그대로 적용해서는 적정한 해결이 어렵다. 낙태죄위헌결정에서 헌법재판소는 기본권충돌을 논하고 적정한 심사기준을 제시했어야 한다. 낙태 논쟁은 종교적, 윤리적 가치판단에 결부된 사안으로서 사법심사를 통한 해결보다 정치과정을 통해 해결하는 것이 더 바람직하다는 주장들도 있다. 그러나 낙태와 같은 문제를 정치과정에 맡길 경우 그 사회의 다수의 가치관이 소수에게 강요되는 상황이 발생할 수 있고, 정치적 타협 자체가 이루어지지 못하는 경우도 있다. 따라서 낙태와 같은 사안에 대해서도 사법적 해결은 필요하다. 다만, 사법적 결정이 과연 헌법해석의 결과인지 재판관의 주관적 가치판단인지 구별하기 어려울 수 있다.

낙태와 재생산권의 보장

전종익 법과사회이론학회 2023 법과 사회 Vol.- No.73

The basic right to decide on abortion for pregnant women is the right to self-determination. But in order to improve the system for the effective guarantee for the right to abortion, many other basic rights must be considered. In this regard, it is argued in international human rights law that it is necessary to guarantee the rights of reproduction. This recognizes that women's right to abortion can be effectively guaranteed only when various types of rights and state obligations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare are comprehensively combined and reviewed. The Constitution is building a multi-layered and complex system for the protection of basic rights through the protection of liberty and the state's active support obligation that combines the obligation to protect basic rights and guarantee social rights. The guarantee of reproductive rights, a collection of various basic rights related to abortion, can be accepted as one of these multi-layered guarantee systems. As the right to abortion is focused on the guarantee of reproductive rights, it can be seen that discussions on follow-up legislation of the Constitutional Court's constitutional nonconformity decision should not be limited to the revision of some articles related to abortion in the Criminal Law and the Maternal and Child Health Act. It is necessary to review all systems related to pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare that were established when abortion was prohibited, and the purpose of the Constitutional Court's decision will be realized only when such a wide range of related laws are enacted and revised. 임신한 여성의 낙태를 결정할 기본권은 자기결정권이 핵심적인 것이기는 하나 그 실질적 보장을 위한 제도의 개선을 위해서는 복수의 기본권이 고려되어야 한다. 이와 관련하여 국제인권법에서는 재생산에 관한 권리들의 보장이 필요함이 주장되고 있고, 이는 임신과 출산, 육아와 관련한 다양한 종류와 성질의 권리와 국가의무들이 포괄적으로 결합하여 검토될 때 비로소 여성의 낙태에 대한 기본권이 실질적으로 보장될 수 있음을 인정하는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 우리 헌법은 문제되는 영역별로 자유권을 중심으로 하면서도 기본권 보호의무와 사회권 보장을 통한 국가의 적극적 지원의무를 통하여 헌법이 기본권 보장을 위한 다층적이고 복합적인 체제를 구축하고 있는 다층적인 보장체계를 도입하고 있으며, 낙태와 관련되어 있는 복수의 다양한 기본권들의 집합체인 재생산에 관한 권리들의 보장은 이러한 다층적 보장체계의 하나로서 받아들일 수 있다. 낙태의 권리를 재생산권에 대한 권리들의 보장을 중심으로 바라보게 되면 헌법재판소의 낙태죄 규정 헌법불합치 결정의 후속입법에 대한 논의는 형법상의 낙태죄 규정과 모자보건법의 낙태 허용 사유 규정의 개정에 한정하여 이루어져서는 안 됨을 알 수 있다. 낙태가 범죄행위가 아닌 기본권으로서 자유롭게 행할 수 있는 행위임을 전제로 한다면 기존 낙태가 금지되었을 때 구축되었던 임신, 출산, 육아와 관련된 제반 제도들을 재검토하는 것이 필요하며, 이와 같이 넓은 범위의 관련 법령들의 제・개정이 이루어질 때 비로소 헌법재판소 결정의 취지가 제대로 실현될 수 있을 것이다.

Legislative Direction and Regulation according to the Decision to be Nonconforming to the Constitution of the Crimes of Abortion

Kwanghyun Park J-INSTITUTE 2022 Regulations Vol.7 No.1

Purpose: On April 11, 2019 (2017Hun-Ba127 decision), the Constitutional Court ruled that the “self-abortion” and “Abortion by Doctor” in the Criminal Act were nonconforming to the Constitution because they limit women’s right to self-determination. Abortion is one of the provisions of Article 10 of the Constitution, the right to self-determination derived from the dignity and value of human beings. On the other hand, the state also has an obligation to protect the life of the fetus. The purpose of this study is to examine foreign legislative cases related to abortion in order to harmoniously resolve the basic rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus in order to meet the request of the Constitutional Court, and to suggest a legislative direction to remove the unconstitutionality of the criminal abortion crime. In addition, we would like to examine the Maternal and Child Health Act for coherence of the legal system. Method: Whether or not to punish abortion is one of the issues that have been controversial in society so far. If the punishment for the crime of abortion is completely banned, the right to life of the fetus may be neglected. To this end, first, I would like to review the contents of the Constitutional Court s decision on the punishment for the crime of abortion. Second, the current state of punishment for abortion is reviewed by reviewing foreign comparative laws on the crime of abortion. Third, the legal, medical, moral, and religious perspectives on punishment for abortion are reviewed. Fourth, based on the discussion so far, I would like to suggest the direction of legislation for the punishment of abortion crimes. Results: The punishment for abortion should not be viewed as a choice between a woman s right to self-determination and the fetus s right to life. Revision of the law should be made in the direction of recognizing and protecting the two legal interests. Article 15 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Maternal and Child Health Act stipulates that abortion is permitted within 24 weeks. However, it is reasonable to refer to the government s legislation and decide whether to allow it based on the 22 weeks of pregnancy, which is the period when the fetus can survive independently, or based on the 3·3·3 principle or reasons for adaptation. In addition, economic and social factors and the period of deliberation should be considered. Conclusion: Punishment for abortion is structured in a way that women s right to self-determination and the basic right of the fetus to life are in conflict. In order to resolve these conflicts harmoniously and constitutionally, political, economic, social and cultural integration must be achieved by stipulating in detail the permissible scope of abortion, when it is permitted, the procedure and method of permissible abortion.

낙태죄의 존폐에 대한 고찰

김용효(Kim, YongHyo) 한양법학회 2011 漢陽法學 Vol.33 No.-

As abortion pills that are taken orally have been recently developed, the controversy surrounding abortion is resurfacing. This controversy is ongoing not just domestically but worldwide; while religious and ethical organizations argue that abortion should never be permitted on the basis of “rights of the fetus” and religious and ethical reasons, others voice the opinion that abortion should be permitted on the basis of the right to pursue happiness and the dignity of mankind. Since the fetus was seen as part of the maternal body in the laws of Ancient Greece, abortion was not seen as a crime. The rights of fetus began to be protected under laws against abortion from the laws of Middle Age church laws and German common laws. The ideological background involved Christian beliefs and the ‘ensoulment theory’ that soul lives within the body. The believers of this theory reasoned that after conception, the soul enters the fetus within 10 weeks and so killing the baby after that time is equal to murdering a human being. Caroina criminal law distinguished the fetus with life from the fetus without, and deemed it murder only when the former was aborted. Although the rights of the fetus is protected in principle by criminal law chapter 27, act 268, but abortion is allowed when necessary according to the adaption rules of Mother and Child Health Care Law. In actuality, it is extremely difficult to determine to what extent the fetus can be seen as an entity with human rights. In the case of Korea, abortion was prohibited as criminal law was established in 1953, but the legal case of aborting a baby within 28 weeks of pregnancy was established with the enactment of the mother and Child Health Care Law. But the increase of leniency on limits on abortion in the 1970s can’t be directly attributed to social demand. It can be seen as a solution on the national level to solve the social problem of sudden population boost and to decrease the discrepancy between the laws and the reality, taking in the international trend of weakening limits against abortion. It can also be seen as an accepting the idea of controlling the population in politics. The making of abortion a criminal offence is not to control women’s rights to have a sexual relationship but to value and protect the rights of the fetus. The High Court of Korea punished a doctor who negligently killed a fetus and legally treated the fetus as a human being. The reason why other developed nations like the United States of America-where sexual activities are more openly discussed has lower abortion rate is because they adopted more systemic sex education programs. It is practical to educate people about the use of contraception to avoid having an unwanted child. Abortion rate cannot be decreased by forcing people have ethical sex. Hence, a detailed sex education programs should be adopted to educate teenagers. For example, by inviting an expert to educate middle and high school students about pregnancy and contraception or even showing students DVDs about abortion to make them realize the seriousness of the effects of having unsafe sex, the abortion rate could be reduced.

Interpreting Reproductive Health Right from International Human Rights Treaties: Application to Abortion Policies in Korea

Han,Ju Youn,Yoo,Doo Hyun,Lim,Jae Kwang 가톨릭생명윤리연구소 2012 인격주의 생명윤리 Vol.2 No.2

The recent trend in international politics seems to project that right to procure abortion is universally recognized under the 'right to reproductive health'. However, such contention is ungrounded from the perspective of international human rights law, since human rights documents remain silent about the issue of abortion. It agrees upon holistic universal principles to protect the dignity of life and personhood which includes both the unborn and women. The task of policy-making on specific issues is delegated to the legislation of respective nations, who must carefully analyse the socio-legal dimension to devise laws that are effective. This essay refutes the said claim that abortion is a universally recognized right, by scrutinizing the international treaties ratified by Korea. It suggests that the principles of the treaties should be best interpreted to in respect to the personhood of both women and the unborn. Then, it scrutinizes the issue of abortion in Korea, both from social and legal perspective. The essay concludes by claiming that Korea should maintain its criminal ban on abortion, while taking steps to meet the international standard of procuring 'Right to Reproductive Health' in the Korean context.

국회 발의 중인 낙태죄 법안에 대한 비판적 연구

연취현 한국교회법학회 2023 교회와 법 Vol.9 No.2

2019.4.1. The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 269, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code for self-abortion and Article 270, Paragraph 1, ‘doctor’ were unconstitutional. At the time, the reason for the decision was that the woman's right to self-determination and the right to life of the fetus were in conflict with each other, and as a result of the proportionality principle, the form of protecting only the right to life of the fetus violated the Constitution, and the abortion crime clause that did not have the power to violate the abortion The reason for this was the fact that the fetus' life was not effectively protected in a conflict situation. Afterwards, six criminal laws and maternal and child health laws were proposed in the National Assembly for the reason of the constitutional inconsistency. These proposals can be classified into two positions in their approach to abortion, which are three eye and criminal laws that take the method of completely deleting the crime of abortion in Chapter 27 of the Criminal Act and stipulating the procedure for supporting legalized abortion in the Mother and Child Health Act. Chapter 27, the crime of abortion is amended, and the procedures and limits of legalized abortion are roughly divided into the remaining three categories set forth in the Maternal and Child Health Act.I n 2019, the Constitutional Court found that the fetus's right to life and the woman's right to self-determination were in conflict in determining constitutional inconsistency, and set the limits of legislative discretion to the National Assembly to resolve the conflict of fundamental rights. Looking at the above amendments with this point in mind, it can be questioned whether the amendment to the Criminal Act in the form of deleting Chapter 27 of the Criminal Act deviated from the limits of legislative discretion set by the Constitutional Court. On the other hand, in revising the laws related to abortion, the problem of the abortion permission period, the period of consideration, the problem of social and economic reasons, the problem of consultation under the Maternal and Child Health Act, the problem of consent in the treatment of minors, and the imposition of the doctor's duty to provide information Even if we look only at the government proposals, there are many challenges to be solved. In addition, if alternative legislation is to be prepared, the nature of women's right to self-determination, the limitation of protection of the right to life of the fetus, the review of the fetus' right to personality, and the state's duty of neutrality to protect all basic rights to the maximum in the event of a conflict of fundamental rights must also be considered. point you will have to remember.