王服清；王翼升

中文摘要

隨著社會價值觀之變遷，人民對於「生殖」的概念以及「家庭」之組成形態，漸已採取多元及開放之態度。尤其人工生殖技術之研究與應用一日千里，已開啟了有別於人類傳統異性之性交而始能自然生殖的另一扇大門。我國現行之人工生殖法，僅限於「夫妻」才可以實施人工生殖技術而繁衍後代。此種限制已侵害了單身者、異性同居伴侶及同性伴侶，得藉由實施人工生殖而體現「繁衍後代」之權利。鑑上所述，英國為世界上第一個經由體外受精誕生試管嬰兒的國家，人工生殖技術之研究更是世界之先驅。西元二○○八年新修正之「人類受精與胚胎法案」（Human Fertilisationand Embryology Act 2008）更是世界上最先進之人工生殖法案。該法案除了更巨細靡遺地規範人工生殖行為外，亦開放了賦予婚姻效力之同性伴侶及單純同居之同性伴侶，藉由人工生殖技術而實踐其生殖權。因英國人類受精與胚胎法案之內容完備，各國制定人工生殖法時，皆列為重要參考，其重要性可見一般。本文冀望藉由研究現今最先進之人工生殖立法例－二○○八年英國「人類受精與胚胎法案」－，在我國人工生殖法下僅以法律夫妻關係者始擁有後代生殖權，提供吾人在質疑其正當性與未來修法時之此議題上，多一個思考檢討之借鏡參考。

The Discussion and Doubts of the Legitimacy about the Right of Reproduction for the Descendant of the Legal Husbands and Wives in the Artificial-Reproductive Act of the R.O.C. ─ On the Basis of the “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008” in the U.K.

Fu-Ching Wang ;Yi-Shen Wang

abstract

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is the first test-tube birth baby's country in the world by way of the external fertilization, and it's research about the artificial-reproductive technology is a pioneer in the world. “The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008” is the most advanced artificial-reproductive law in the world. Besides of detailedly regulated artificial-reproductive behavior by the“The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008”, this act also allows the same-sex couples with marital effect or the living-together same-sex couples without marital effect to practice their right of reproduction by means of the artificial-reproductive technology. Because the contents of “The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008”is complete, and various countries, who all list such act as the important reference, formulate artificial-reproductive law, therefore it's significance is obvious. This article to write hopes that the artificial-reproductive law in our country permits only the legal husbands and wives to have the right of reproduction for the descendant, but the study of the nowadays most advanced artificial-reproductive legal example –“The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008”－, provides us for the discussion amd doubts about the legitimacy of our artificial-reproductive law in question and it's future amendment.