論程序性阻卻違法事由──以「期間內諮詢程序」作為容許墮胎事由為中心

The Basis of Procedural Justifications: Focusing on“Counseling within the Period”as the Reason for Allowing Abortion

德國聯邦憲法法院在第二次墮胎判決中，對當時刑法修正案之「遵循諮詢程序得阻卻墮胎罪違法性」相關規定宣告違憲後，學者即為文批評，認為系爭規定實創設了一種新形態「程序性阻卻違法事由」，理據並非保全優越利益，而是因應現實。然而，無論是試圖類比刑法中既有的各種阻卻違法概念，或是強調程序性阻卻違法事由在現代社會中的生成條件，抑或是既有的阻卻違法事由之實質理據，都無法合理說明其理論基礎。本文於是以程序性為其特徵的溝通理性為論述起點。基此，行動合理性的判斷標準在於一個能讓所有可能受行為作用影響之人進行行動理由交換的論辯程序，倘若行動合乎該程序之結論，即屬合理。從而，阻卻違法事由的實質基礎在於貫徹溝通自由，亦即，如果特定構成要件該當行為，可以被理解為實現個人的溝通自由，仍屬合法。墮胎諮詢程序是立法者透過民主論辯程序，因應墮胎情境的特殊性而作成的特別規範。在其中，相關當事人得直接或間接參與並進行有關孕婦身體自主權與胎兒生命權權利劃界的理由交換，所作成的結論，是貫徹當事人的溝通自由，因而得阻卻墮胎行為之違法性。

Following the German Federal Constitutional Court’s second abortion judgment, which declared the provision in the amended Criminal Code stating that“adherence to consultation procedures may justify abortion”to be unconstitutional, scholars have raised significant critiques, arguing that the provision in question introduced a novel concept of“procedural justifications.”Unlike traditional justifications, which aim at preserving superior interests, procedural justifications focus on addressing practical realities. Despite attempts to explain this concept through analogies to established principles in criminal law, an emphasis on modern societal conditions, or existing theories of justifications, scholars have struggled to provide a coherent theoretical foundation.
This article seeks to address this gap by employing the concept of communicative rationality, characterized by its procedural nature, as a framework for discussion. Within this framework, the rationality of an action is determined by a discursive process in which all individuals potentially affected by the action can exchange and evaluate reasons. An action is deemed reasonable if it aligns with the conclusion reached through such a procedure. Therefore, the fundamental basis for justifications in criminal law lies in fostering the freedom of communication.
In the context of abortion, the consultation process represents a specific legislative regulation designed to address the unique ethical and legal complexities of the issue. This democratic discursive process enables relevant parties to engage—either directly or indirectly—in deliberations that balance maternal bodily autonomy against the fetus’right to life. The conclusions drawn from this process uphold the freedom of communication for the parties involved, thereby justifying abortion.