In-gyeokju-ui saengmyeong-yulli最新文献

{"title":"Abortion Law After 2019","authors":"Dong Yiel Syn","doi":"10.35230/pb.2023.13.1.149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35230/pb.2023.13.1.149","url":null,"abstract":"The Korean Constitutional Court brought much complicated legal issues instead of settlement of the abortion debates. It overruled old decision of its own in 2012. She sacrificed the principle of legal stability. The Court, however, admitted the petition which was once refused by the court. In principio, once rejected case must be appealed up to higher court rather than the same stance. No other cases go through like that. The petition on the section 270 sub. 1 of former criminal law about assited abortion by medical professionals was reviewd with respect to autonomy of pregnant person. It would be a fallacy of category. Modern legal theories are old that the court cannot tell her own personal opinion (Weltanschauung), but they should focus on counselling which arguments will be won in the courts. The best argument for the other side was available at one branch of the most fashionable rationality. A modern theory would be making out of the lands of authoritarian judges. It went on the hands of people who have the right to process. A mind-independence is a criterion, or a necessary condition, for realism. To say something being mind-independent is typically thought to be part of what it is to say that it is real and objective, means truly exists. It is not the imagination or other cognitive faculties. The mind-independence (or the related notion of human-independence) in a criterium for realism differs from a set of phenomena, a physical world. Perhaps that is how it should be; legal properties like abortion are often regarded as ontologically suspect where is dominated in the field of morality or religious beliefs. This criterion seems to allow us to distinguish them clearly from the material properties. It should be useful to understand this issue in a matter-dependent analysis. Both opponents and supporters of abortion concern the case will have wild possibility to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1973. In June 2022, the US Supreme court held Dobbs v. Jackson in favour of the plantiff Dobbs, a official who worked for the government of state Mississippi. It touched the old prime rule of stare decisis and viability measurement. Still controversial whether Dobbs case would change all the abortion practice in the US and further. By now no one has complacency yet. I will show these distinctions to cling to strictly if there is a coherence to be made. The abortion should be told in legal science only, and then a politics or welfare policies would be adapted hereafter.","PeriodicalId":486039,"journal":{"name":"In-gyeokju-ui saengmyeong-yulli","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135489846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}