The key stage of the US election is approaching, and the two -party candidate is forced to make a series of key social issues under the pressure of time. Among them, the issue of abortion rights of traditional election issues, Republican candidate Trump made the latest remarks.Previously, Trump attributed the Court of Supreme Court to defending women's abortion rights to his own credit. However, at the moment of election, he clarified that he would not sign the national ban and softened his attitude.The Democratic Party's Harris adheres to the Democratic Party's consistent position and believes that the right to abortion should be controlled by women themselves.It can be seen that the general public opinion orientation of the issue of abortion witnesses in the election language has a significant gap with the traditional position of the Republican Party, which constitutes Trump's "discussion burden" to some extent.
The public opinion on the issue of abortion rights has a profound tension with the morals of the United States, becoming a tearing agenda for American society.From the perspective of other countries such as China, the confrontation, tearing, and even shock caused by this issue are difficult to understand to some extent, and must be attributed to the unique national moral tension in the United States.To be precise, it is the conflict of the development of the ethics of Christianity. It is reflected in reality and is the confrontation of the ancient constitutional law.
One of the important contents of Christian ethics is the emphasis on the right to human life, and the right to life cannot be abandoned because it comes from God.John's Gospel records Jesus' words and deeds: "No one can take away my life, I have given up myself. I have the right to give up my life and have the right to take it back; this is what I received from my father.Order. "The only abandonment of the right to life in the Bible discussion, through the twists and turns of this passage, the right to life is obvious.It can be seen that the divineness and human nature of life power constitute a part of the divine and inviolability of Christian ethics. Therefore, it is demonstrated that each fetus should have the right to have the right to see the world, and the path and happiness given by the creator.
There is no doubt that Christianity ethics constitutes the morality of the United States and is reflected in the US constitutional text.It is no different from general murder.Christianity establishes the ethical personality of the fetus, and the "principle of equivalent protection" in Article 14 of the Constitution's amendment to confirm that the fetus also has legal personality.Deep tension.
The morality of ancient foundation is essentially the legacy of the age of divine rights. The emphasis on life power is that logically serving the supreme conviction of the creator, but the "God" is gradually "dead" in the rational era.Volkswagen public opinion began to impact with ancient laws. One of the prominent new ideas was the expansion of the right to freedom: the right to choose.This is a variant that is very different from the age of divine power. The freedom to choose is fundamental betrayal of the creator.The issue of abortion rights began to be challenged by the ethics. A woman should have the right to choose and dominate any part of the body.Unfortunately.
Generally speaking, living people are keen to chase their own freedom rights and challenge the restrictions of the dead. Another related party fetus in this agenda is like a dead person in terms of personality ability, and challenges are inevitable.The public opinion gives the ancient laws to a new explanation. From Article 9 of the Constitution's amendment to maintain other rights stipulated in the Constitution, the key concept of promoting privacy rights, including women can choose whether to terminate pregnancy.
The tension of public opinion and national morality has led to the famous Luo Devil's judgment, which is an embarrassing compromise.The collision between the right to life and privacy is deeply reflected in this judgment to seek the golden mean and reconcile: on the one hand, the first six months of pregnancy, whether the abortion can be a woman's personal privacy, with contraception, sex, marriage, reproduction, childbirthIn the same way, it is the basic right to be guaranteed by the Constitution, and no state must be deprived; on the other hand, in the 24th to 28th weeks of pregnancy, the fetus can leave the uterus and survive alone. Women's abortion rights should be restricted.During this period, the fetus's right to live is higher than the privacy and choice of pregnant women.
Through the rigorous division of pregnancy periods and introducing medical evidence in installments, the Supreme Court tried to achieve the reconciliation of life right and selection. The compromise judgment made is classic.Through the logical positioning of rigorous time and staging, the legal personality of the fetus and the legal personality of women seem to get both.
However, in fact, it is this rigorous time installment that makes this judgment completely loses reality operability and becomes an embarrassing compromise.Too rigorous quantification is only the data itself, not the facts; extended to this judgment, it actually constitutes a ethical compromise declaration, rather than practical legal guidance documents, and does not give the fetus life right and women's choice of choice.The clear level judgment is inevitable.Fortunately, the American cultural atmosphere was generally conservative. This judgment was a milestone victory at the time when it was regarded as the "abortion agenda".However, the development of public opinion often exceeds the constraints of ancient morality, so that today, Trump did not dare to express his heart on the issue of abortion rights.
Difficult to solve it?Morality is moral, reality belongs to reality
If the political and social structure of the United States is destined to be at the beginning of the historical starting point, the national morality and constitutional law will be accompanied by social development, and in terms of abortion rights, how to deal with the tension of the popular public opinion,It became a dilemma, and the two had fundamental conflicts in terms of origin.But there are similar successful cases in China: Chen Ziang's revenge can be referred to.
During the Wuzhou period of China, some person Xu Yuanqing killed his father's enemies. He was chopped according to the law.The eunuch Chen Ziang went to Wu Zetian, and proposed "killing the law of the Ming Dynasty, and the Jing Zhi Yi Qiqi" (compiles: He will be guilty of death, and at the same time commend his behavior in his hometown;The ethical conflict of revenge), so dilemma solved it.
Extended the issue of abortion rights, the provisions of the law on the right to life of the fetus are established at the starting point of American history. This is not possible to abandon it at all in the public opinion of the public.The ancient laws are also inseparable from American history.However, the problem of jumping out of the legal problem itself does not need to trace the source of the established constraints, but to seek improvement on the basis of acceptance.The text controversy involving legal issues is not played, and it involves fundamental value conflict.American society may wish to reach some consensus on the standards of law, so that the law of law and facts of law will be reached.The supremacy of the right to life in the law, and the right of the same woman's choice is normal at the realistic price, which may be compatible.This requires a tacit interactive interaction with reality.
The author is a researcher at the Taiwan Research Center of Sichuan Province
