后民法典时代生育权的人格权地位证成
作者:
中图分类号:

D923

基金项目:

2021年度云南省哲学社会科学规划青年项目"民法典视域下人类辅助生殖的私法秩序建构"(QN202118);2020年西南政法大学总体国家安全观研究院重点项目"生物安全风险防控和治理体系建设专项课题"(JS-ZTGJAQG-009);2021年度云南省教育厅科学研究基金(人文社科类)项目"民法典时代云南省家庭教育地方立法研究"(2021J0078)


Demonstration of reproductive rights as personality rights in the post Civil Code era
Author:
  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [60]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    尽管我国《民法典》第110条未明文列举生育权,但其条文内容的开放性为生育权的人格权地位证成提供了制度空间。生育权的正当性源于其自由价值,当下我国生育观念在保留传统家文化的同时,也基本完成对生育自由价值的吸纳。随着生育政策进一步放宽,公法对生育权的合理规制不构成对私法上生育权成立的阻碍。尽管生育行为须男女两性配合完成,但关于是否生育的选择本质上由个人作出,故生育权归属于作为个体的自然人,而非作为整体的夫妻。其中,即使男性在生理上无法孕育子女,但因其妻是否妊娠直接关乎丈夫的家庭规划,所以丈夫也有参与决定是否生育子女的权利,这在人类辅助生殖领域体现得尤为明显,故男性也属于生育权的主体。生育权与身体权、健康权存在本质差异。虽然对生育权的行使往往落脚于对自己身体的支配,但正如婚姻自主权、缔约自由权早已从"行动自由"这一兜底性权利中分化出去一样,生育权也因具有极其独特的内涵与外延,而应与身体权区分开来。生育权与健康权的区别较为明显,前者是自由性人格权益,而后者是物质性人格权,且两者价值追求也截然不同。生育权具有典型公开性,社会认知对于生育自由的重要性早已达成普遍共识;从对现有裁判文书的梳理来看,生育权概念在在我国司法实践中已被广泛运用,相关的救济经验积累正逐步完备。生育权符合从利益到权利的一般证成标准,将其视为人格权并非权利泛化现象,生育权应属《民法典》第110条"等权利"之表述中所包含而未列明的具体人格权。

    Abstract:

    Although Article 110 of the Civil Code does not expressly establish the reproductive rights, its openness provides an institutional space for the status of personality rights of reproduction rights. The legitimacy of reproductive rights stems from freedom value. At present, the concept of fertility in China has basically completed the absorption of the value of reproduction freedom while preserving the traditional family culture. The reasonable regulation of reproductive rights by public law does not deny the establishment of it in private law. Although the reproductive behavior needs the cooperation of men and women, the choice of whether to have children is essentially made by individuals, so the reproductive right belongs to natural persons as individuals, not to couples as a whole. Meanwhile, even if men are physically unable to have children, whether the wives are pregnant is directly related to the husbands' family planning, husbands also have the right to participate in deciding whether to have children, which is particularly obvious in the field of human assisted reproduction, so men also belong to the subject of reproductive rights. There are essential differences between reproductive rights, body rights and health rights. Although the exercise of reproductive rights often rests on the control of one's own body, just as the right of marriage autonomy and freedom of contracting has long been differentiated from the basic right of "freedom of action", reproductive rights should be distinguished from body rights because of their extremely unique connotation and extension. The difference between reproductive rights and health rights is obvious. The former is a free personality right, while the latter is a material personality right, and their value pursuit is completely different. Reproductive rights are typical, and the public has already reached a general consensus on the importance of reproductive freedom. Judging from the existing judgment documents, the concept of reproductive rights has also been widely used in judicial practice, and the protection system for reproductive rights has gradually improved. Reproduction rights conform to the general justification standard from interest to rights. Treating reproduction rights as personality rights is not the generalization of rights. Reproduction rights belong to the type of personality rights that not listed in Article 110 of the Civil Code.

    参考文献
    [1] 于飞.权利与利益区分保护的侵权法体系之研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2012:56.
    [2] 朱虎.侵权法中的法益区分保护:思想与技术[J].比较法研究,2015(5):44-59.
    [3] 姚辉.侵权责任法视域下的人格权[J].中国人民大学学报,2009(3):22-27.
    [4] 韩强.人格权确认与构造的法律依据[J].中国法学,2015(3):138-158.
    [5] 李景义,项定宜,李浩.人格权体系研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2016:95-96.
    [6] 谢晖.论新型权利生成的习惯基础[J].法商研究,2015(1):44-53.
    [7] 徐钝.论新型人格权司法证成的基本准则[J].法商研究,2018(3):38-49.
    [8] 张建文.新兴权利保护的合法利益说研究[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018(5):87-95.
    [9] 付淑娥.环境人格权正当性论证之归纳推理[J].广西社会科学,2017(5):83-88.
    [10] 王方玉.权利的内在伦理解析:基于新兴权利引发权利泛化现象的反思[J].法商研究,2018(4):82-92.
    [11] 陈运华.论作为人格权的性权利及其法律限制[J].政治与法律,2008(8):133-137.
    [12] 于柏华.权利认定的利益判准[J].法学家,2017(6):1-13,175.
    [13] 姚宇.新型民事权利的界限及其证成[J].学术交流,2016(11):61-66.
    [14] 雷磊.新兴(新型)权利的证成标准[J].法学论坛,2019(3):20-29.
    [15] 胡卫萍.新型人格权的立法确认[J].法学论坛,2011(6):17-21.
    [16] 严海良.人权论证范式的变革:从主体性到关系性[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2008:323.
    [17] 夏勇.中国民权哲学[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004:132-133.
    [18] 夏勇.人权概念起源:权利的历史哲学[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:192.
    [19] 湛中乐.公民生育权与社会抚养费制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:5.
    [20] 瞿同祖.中国法律与中国社会[M].北京:商务印书馆,2010:103.
    [21] 李银河.生育与村落文化[M].呼和浩特:内蒙古大学出版社,2009.
    [22] 侯佳伟,顾宝昌,张银锋.子女偏好与出生性别比的动态关系:1979-2017[J].中国社会科学,2018(10):86-101,206.
    [23] 陈丽琴.从被动追随到主动选择:新中国成立以来农村妇女意愿生育性别偏好变迁及其原因[J].浙江社会科学,2019(9):26-36,156.
    [24] 吴欢.国家干预生育的历史、法理与限度[J].学习与探索,2016(3):64-70.
    [25] 张震.从生育政策到生育权:理论诠释、规范再造及功能定位[J].当代法学,2023(2):28-39.
    [26] 姜帆.法治视野下的公权力与生育权克减[J].商业时代,2013(17):133-134.
    [27] 周永坤.丈夫生育权的法理问题研究:兼评《婚姻法解释(三)》第9条[J].法学,2014(12):9-15.
    [28] 樊林.生育权探析[J].法学,2000(09):32-37,42.
    [29] 王旭霞.夫妻生育权的实现与救济[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2009(2):145-150.
    [30] 罗潇.法律规制视野下的生育行为研究[M].天津:天津大学出版社,2016:57.
    [31] 姜玉梅.生育权的法律定位[J].人口与经济,2004(01):12-16,54.
    [32] 杨立新.最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(三)理解与适用[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2011:188-189.
    [33] 张作华,徐小娟.生育权的性别冲突与男性生育权的实现[J].法律科学(西北政法学院学报),2007(2):129-136.
    [34] COLLINS E F.An overview and analysis:Prenatal torts preconception torts wrongful life wrongful death and wrongful birth:Time for a new framework.[J].Journal of Family Law,1983,22(4):677-711.
    [35] 阳平,杜强强.生育权之概念分析[J].法律适用,2003(10):32-33.
    [36] 李小年.夫妻生育权若干法律问题探讨[J].学习与探索,2008(2):116-119.
    [37] 张荣芳.论生育权[J].福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001(4):36-38.
    [38] 王竹,方延.身体权学理独立过程考[J].广州大学学报(社会科学版),2012(5):36-41.
    [39] 克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法(下卷)[M].焦美华,译.北京:法律出版社,2001:80.[40朱晓喆,徐刚.民法上生育权的表象与本质:对我国司法实务案例的解构研究[J].法学研究,2010(5):64,66-78.
    [41] 程啸.侵权责任法[M].2版.北京:法律出版社,2015:129-130.
    [42] AUGER E N. The "art" of future life:Rethinking personal injury law for the negligent deprivation of a patient's right to procreation in the age of assisted reproductive technologies[J].Chicago-Kent Law Review,2019,94(1):51-68.
    [43] 王泽鉴.人格权法:法释义学、比较法、案例研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:104.
    [44] 李适时.中华人民共和国民法总则释义[M].北京:法律出版社,2017:339.
    [45] 武秀英.对生育权的法理阐释[J].山东社会科学,2004(1):97-100.
    [46] 张津.简论我国生育权的法律规范与社会人性化的对立统一[J].山西师大学报(社会科学版),2010(S1):7-9.
    [47] 武秀英.法理学视野中的权利:关于性·婚姻·生育·家庭的研究[M].济南:山东大学出版社,2005:199.
    [48] M.薄兹,P.施普曼.社会与生育[M].张世文,译.天津:天津人民出版社,1991:430.
    [49] FOX D.Reproductivenegligence[J].Columbia Law Review,2017,117(1):149-241.
    [50] HILL J L. Whatdoes it mean to be a parent-The claims of biology as the basis for parental rights[J].New York University Law Review,1991,66(2):353-420.
    [51] JOHN A R.Children of choice:Freedom and the new reproductive technologies[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,1994:24.
    [52] 费孝通.生育制度[M].北京:群言出版社,2016:13-15.
    [53] 孟德斯鸠.论法的精神(下册)[M].张雁深,译.北京:商务印书馆,1997:108.
    [54] 马驰.人类基因编辑的权利基础[J].华东政法大学学报,2019(5):46-59.
    [55] 李永军.民法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:247.
    [56] 韩强.人格权确认与构造的法律依据[J].中国法学,2015(3):138-158.
    [57] 谢晖.论新型权利的基础理念[J].法学论坛,2019(3):5-19.
    [58] 张力.权利、法益区分保护及其在民法总则中的体现:评《民法总则(草案)》第五章[J].河南社会科学,2016(11):1-12.
    [59] 陈景辉.回应"权利泛化"的挑战[J].法商研究,2019(3):40-49.
    [60] 陈林林.反思中国法治进程中的权利泛化[J].法学研究,2014(1):10-13.
    [61] 王歌雅,张小余.生育利益私法保护的权利基础与规制范式[J].思想战线,2021(1):152-160.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

李倩,张建文.后民法典时代生育权的人格权地位证成[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2023,29(3):212-223. DOI:10.11835/j. issn.1008-5831. fx.2021.09.005

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:597
  • 下载次数: 731
  • HTML阅读次数: 1614
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-07-13
文章二维码