Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Durham Law School, Durham DH1 3LE, UK.
Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics and Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, United States.
Med Law Rev. 2023 Nov 27;31(4):538-563. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwad015.
Time plays a fundamental role in abortion regulation. In this article, we compare the regulatory frameworks in England and Wales and the Netherlands as examples of the centrality accorded to viability in the determination of the parameters of non-criminal abortion, demonstrating that the use of viability as a threshold renders the law uncertain. We assess the role played by the concept of viability, analysing its impact upon the continued criminalization of abortion and categorization of abortion as a medical matter, rather than a reproductive choice. We conclude that viability is misconceived in its application to abortion and that neonatal viability (relating to treatment of the premature infant) and fetal viability (related to the capacity to survive birth) must be distinguished to better reflect the social context within which the law and practice of abortion operate. We show how viability thresholds endanger pregnant people.
时间在堕胎监管中起着根本性的作用。在本文中，我们以英格兰和威尔士与荷兰为例，比较了这两个地方的监管框架，这两个地方都将生存能力置于非刑事堕胎参数的确定的核心地位，表明将生存能力作为一个界限会使法律变得不确定。我们评估了生存能力这一概念所扮演的角色，分析了它对继续将堕胎定罪以及将堕胎归类为医疗问题而不是生殖选择的影响。我们的结论是，将生存能力应用于堕胎是一种误解，必须区分新生儿生存能力（与早产儿的治疗有关）和胎儿生存能力（与出生后生存能力有关），以更好地反映堕胎的法律和实践所运作的社会背景。我们展示了生存能力界限如何危及孕妇。
