An Ethical Court of the Constitutional Court's Decisions on Abortion. (English)

This paper aims to establish an "ethics court" that critically reviews the Constitutional Court's ruling on abortion from an ethical point of view. In other words, what is the ethical argument of the Constitutional Court's decision that women's rights to abortion should be respected as constitutional rights? Since the fundamental idea of the Constitution is justice, we have no choice but to philosophically adhere to this question based on the idea of justice. Among the various conceptions of justice, I would like to accept John Rawls' theory of justice as the theoretical premise of the ethical court and ask whether the right to abortion is consistent with his political conception of justice. To this end, I will first express his position on the right to abortion, and then critically discuss it in light of the idea of public reason and justice as fairness. In particular, since political values that exclude moral values such as the right to life of the fetus alone cannot advocate the right to abortion, public reason has limitations, and if the fetus is accepted as a party to the original position, justice as a fairness will inevitably accept the right to life. Therefore, in the conclusion, I would like to argue that unlike Rawls' own argument, the right to abortion is not derived based on the idea of constitutional justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Health Law & Ethics is the property of Ewha Institute for Biomedical Law & Ethics, Ewha Womans University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)