透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.206.3.58
  • 學位論文

我國人工生殖法之受術主體限制對同性伴侶的影響: 性別議題、子女利益與實踐經驗

Artificial Reproduction Act’s Restriction on Same-Sex Couples: Gender Issues, Welfare of the Child, and Practices

指導教授 : 林昀嫺

摘要


人工生殖技術的出現讓人類得以突破生理上的限制進行生育,然而,科技不能獨立於社會而存在,人們對生殖科技潛在力量的擔憂即反映在法律的限制之上,而這些限制又將進一步形塑科技對社會的影響。於2007年三讀通過的《人工生殖法》,即在種種倫理與性別因素的考量下,既與代理孕母脫勾,又將受術主體限於特定條件。本文將結合數種研究法──法釋義學、法社會學與實證研究──剖析我國人工生殖受術主體限制對同性伴侶所生之影響,以及其所產生的幾個法律與性別議題。 透過對《民法》與《人工生殖法》交織運用之分析,第二章將勾勒出受術者與人工生殖子女間法律關係的圖像,並透過將被排除的受術者類型化加以分析,指出現行法律的限制對各種不同性別、性傾向的被排除者而言,有何不同的影響。此外,由於本文以同性伴侶能否近用人工生殖為分析核心,故我國最新之法律動態,即伴侶盟所提出之多元成家草案亦相當值得關注;惟若聚焦於人工生殖,本文發現該草案雖有許多革命性突破,但仍有不少限制,尤在需要代孕制度介入時更是如此。 於分析現行法律的規範、適用關係與適用結果後,本文將接續探討最初立法者設下這些受術主體限制的立法理由為何?其中牽涉哪些性別議題或歧視?此種考量與限制是否合理?第三章透過分析立法院審理《人工生殖法》之會議記錄,發現問題核心乃立法者對於家庭制度的想像及對子女利益的考量。然而,立法理由卻相當地具性別歧視,認為僅有符合現行《民法》之一夫一妻的家庭才能夠保障子女利益,並進而排除包含同性伴侶等非夫妻近用人工生殖的權利。對此,本文提出三個批評,首先,其對子女利益的權衡乃是失衡之判斷,僅僅因非夫妻就將他們排除實有不妥。其次,立法者所持標準,並無相關實證資料可證;反之,本文將整理國內外既有的實證文獻與立法例,說明不論是由單身、非夫妻者,以及同性伴侶養育子女,皆不會當然地不利益於子女。最後,人工生殖的受術主體限制亦有違反CEDAW、兩公約等國際人權公約對家庭權保障之虞,且開放非夫妻近用人工生殖以生育子女,亦不會違反CRC對「兒童最佳利益」原則之要求。 最後,本文透過訪談發現透過人工生殖生育子女之男、女同性伴侶,多半有著支持團體的協助與幫忙,不論其形式為NGO、臉書或Line群組。他們在這些團體中不只分享人工生殖資訊、討論同志家庭教養子女之方法,當彼此遇有困難時也能相互協助。此外,本文亦發現,對於一些同志家庭在法律上所無法跨過的身分法藩籬,他們也都有應變之道,以盡可能地保障伴侶彼此及其子女之權利。基於此實證研究所得之資料,筆者對《人工生殖法》以夫妻為限之立法理由提出經驗層次上之批評,認為立法者不應以「子女利益」為由,事前且全面地排除同性伴侶近用人工生殖的權利,因為即使目前法律對同性伴侶有著層層阻隔,他們仍想盡一切辦法維繫子女的利益,何來非夫妻養育子女將不利益於子女之說?故此,本文最後主張《人工生殖法》應修法,將「夫妻」之用語修正為「受術者」或「受術病患」;與此同時,亦應考慮配套措施,如配子來源問題該如何解決,以及該如何完善人工生殖評估程序與咨詢服務,俾使我國人工生殖的環境能對同性伴侶更加友善。

並列摘要


The appearance of artificial reproductive technologies(ART) enables human beings to overcome the biological barriers to procreation. Technologies, however, does not exist without social contexts. Namely, the regulation on technologies reflects people’s worries, and the regulation will in turn affect the society. Taiwan Artificial Reproduction Act, passed in 2007, is one of the examples. It not only excludes surrogate arrangements but also allows only married couples under certain conditions the access to ART. In this thesis, I am going to combine a few methodologies, including legal dogmatic, sociology of law and empirical studies, to analyze how the restrictions on recipients under Taiwan Artificial Reproduction Act will affect same-sex couples, while focus on legal and gender issues. In chapter 2, I will first portray the artificial reproductive practices through interpreting Civil Code and Artificial Reproduction Act. With delicate categorization, I will point out different levels of ethical and technical challenges if recipients have access to artificial reproduction. Besides, the latest development of law making, three Civil Code drafts made by Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, is also worth noticing. Focusing on artificial reproduction, we will find there are still some restrictions remained, especially when surrogacy is involved. To repeal such restrictions, it is necessary to discuss the reasons why the restrictions were originally formed and the involved gender issues. By analyzing the legislative process record in chapter 3, I will explain that the welfare of the child was standing in the center of the dispute. The legislators, however, were tainted by gender discrimination while considering children's welfare. Based on this discrimination, only heterosexual married couple are deemed worthy parents. I will criticize this legislative reasoning through three perspectives. One is that the judgment of the best interests of the child made by legislators was ill-founded. Second, there was no existing empirical study that could justify the legislators’ bias. Finally, these restrictions made by such gender discrimination might violate the right to a family, according to international conventions such as CEDAW, ICCPR, and ICESCR. Considering the best interests of the child being the main issue here, how to respond to it will be the vital issue. I recognize that different kinds of families have their own different challenges, particularly when LGBT families fight for access to artificial reproduction in the current legal system and social context. However, we shall improve the legal framework in the direction of protecting children’s welfare, instead of a total prohibition on people other than married heterosexual couples. In chapter 4, using empirical data gathered from in-depth interviews, I will narrate and analyze gay and lesbian couples’ artificial reproductive experiences, and hereby give some advice for establishing a friendly, better ART environment in Taiwan.

參考文獻


林昀嫺(2008)。〈論未成年人收養之國際趨勢與我國法制〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,5卷1期,頁83-109。
張文貞(2014)。〈性別平等之內涵與定位:兩公約與憲法之比較〉,《臺大法學論叢》,43卷特刊,頁829。
邱玟惠(2009)。〈人工生殖子女親子法制之檢討與修法建議〉,《台大法學論叢》,38卷3期,頁281-341。
李震山(2004)。〈憲法意義下之「家庭權」〉,《中正法學集刊》,16期,頁61-104。
台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟,https://tapcpr.wordpress.com/(最後拜訪日期:2016/2/1)

延伸閱讀