Law and the society
法律與社會

Text

Does a live-born human infant is still a "fetus"?

　　On Tuesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act on a voice vote.  This is a simple, three-paragraph bill that would codify, for federal law purposes, the traditional definition of "born alive." Specifically, under the bill, the terms "person," "human being," "child" and "individual," whenever they appear in federal laws or regulations, will be construed to include "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive."  The term "born alive" is then defined as "complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother," followed by a heartbeat, respiration, or movement of voluntary muscles.

　　This is the legal definition already incorporated in the laws of most states.

　　At 7:39 p.m. Tuesday, the Associated Press bureau in Washington sent out a dispatch that began, "The House voted Tuesday to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having been ‘born alive,' which would give the fetus full legal protection."  The term "fetus" was employed repeatedly throughout the rest of the dispatch.

　　Quickly, I and at least one other reader pointed out to the AP editor on duty that "fetus" is not an appropriate or accurate term to apply to a human infant who is entirely born and alive.  If an infant is born alive prematurely, then the proper term would be "premature infant" or "premature baby," not "fetus."

　　Sometimes induction of labor is used as a method of abortion, and sometimes this results in a live birth.  This is sometimes referred to as a "live birth abortion."  On occasion, other abortion methods also result in live births.  But a premature infant is a premature infant-and a legally protected person-regardless of how he or she reached that state.

　　Regrettably, the AP did not correct its error.  Instead AP editors compounded the original error by transmitting updates that contained this statement:  "The legislation is aimed at an abortion procedure critics call ‘partial-birth' in which a fetus is partially delivered before being destroyed. Thirty states and the District of Columbia already have laws against the procedure." 

　　In fact, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act does not restrict partial-birth abortion.  In a partial-birth abortion, the fetus/baby is mostly delivered but the head remains in the womb while the skull is punctured-hence the name, PARTIAL-birth.  The fetus/baby destroyed in a PARTIAL-birth abortion has not achieved the "complete extraction or expulsion from his or her mother" required to be "born alive" under H.R. 2175.  Moreover, the laws that the AP refers to are laws that define "live birth," not laws restricting partial-birth abortion.  According to the House Judiciary subcommittee that H.R. 2175 have codified the definition of "live birth" for their state-law purposes, and of these, 30 states and D.C. have codified definitions virtually identical to those contained in H.R. 2175.   (D.C. has never enacted a restriction on partial-birth abortion.) 

Reading Comprehension

1. What does the first paragraph mainly talk about?
[A] A new bill has been passed by the Home.
[B] The bill would be codified.
[C] The term "born alive" has a new definition.
[D] There are many debates about the bill.

2. What did the author probably mean by his saying, "This is the legal definition already incorporated in the laws of most states."?
[A] The bill should come earlier.
[B] A lot of states have already adopted the definition in their laws.
[C] It will affect the federal laws.
[D] Both B and C.

3. Read paragraph 4 carefully and then point out that why did the author think that "fetus" is not a fitted word to describe that especially situation?
[A] An infant is alive but a fetus is not.
[B] The word "fetus" is not an accurate term.
[C] When you use the word "fetus", there is something discrimination in your talk.
[D] "Fetus" is not considered as a real person but when you use the word "infant" to describe someone he or she is a real one who alive.

4. According to your understanding, what does partial-birth mean?
[A] It indicated the situation that an infant was failed to born.
[B] A method of abortion.
[C] An unsuccessful born of a child.
[D] Dystocia.

5. What did the Associated Press think about the live-born human infant ?
[A] They thought that the live-born human infant was still a fetus.
[B] They didn't think that the live-born human infant was still a fetus.
[C] They have no idea about the definition of a live-born human infant.
[D] They thought it was bloody to use the partial-born method to the fetus.

1.[C]

仔細閱讀文中第一段可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，該段講述國會通過新法案重點是從法案的影響上來談的。其影響就是會對關于活體產(chǎn)嬰定義產(chǎn)生影響。這也是該段的中心。所以該題選C。

2.[A]

細節(jié)與主旨對映題。此類題型給出文中一個細節(jié)并提供選項讓考生選擇，此時考生選擇答案必須依照原文的主旨進行把握。我們看這道題，雖然考查的是一句話，但通讀全文可以看出，作者的態(tài)度上盡管認為該法案尚有不足，但基本上還是持贊同意見的。所以這里選A。

3.[D]

仔細比較原文可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，文中作者認為胎兒和嬰兒的主要區(qū)別在于胎兒不被法律認可為人，而嬰兒則可以受到此類保護。

4.[B]

細節(jié)題。仔細閱讀文中最后兩段就可發(fā)現(xiàn)partial-birth指的是一種墮胎方法。

5.[B]

推斷題。本題需要先排除干擾項D項。D項的表述不是美聯(lián)社的觀點。在文中，作者提到美聯(lián)社時說他們是錯用了詞語，把活產(chǎn)嬰兒說成是胎兒。注意，這里作者認為是美聯(lián)社稱活產(chǎn)的嬰兒為胎兒是用詞錯誤而并沒有認為美聯(lián)社不把產(chǎn)下的活嬰兒當作嬰兒看。 這道題問我們美聯(lián)社的人怎么看待活產(chǎn)嬰兒問題，即使問得很客觀，但歸根結(jié)底這是篇闡述作者個人觀點的議論文，只有緊緊抓住作者的觀點才能得出正確選項。故該題選B。

Words:

1. representative  代表；典型的，有代表性的

2. codify  編成法典

3. Associated press  美聯(lián)社

4. dispatch   急件

5. legislation   立法

Notes:

1.  At 7:39 p.m. Tuesday, the Associated ...full legal protection."

 本句話難在語序的調(diào)整上。只要把語序調(diào)整，符合漢語習慣本句話就不難翻譯了。

本句應譯為：周二晚7：39，美聯(lián)社駐華盛頓辦事處發(fā)出了一個急件，開頭如下："國會周二舉行投票表決，將完全脫離母體的嬰兒定義為活體產(chǎn)嬰。這將給予這些胎兒們完全的法律保護。"

2.  If an infant is born alive ...or "premature baby," not "fetus."

"prematurely"是副詞，意思是"未成熟地，太早地，早熟地"。

本句應譯為：如果一個嬰兒早產(chǎn)并存活，那么合適的稱呼應該是早產(chǎn)嬰或者早產(chǎn)寶寶，而非胎兒。

3.  But a premature infant is a ...he or she reached that state.

這是一個強調(diào)句，兩次重復提到"premature infant"目的在于強調(diào)早產(chǎn)兒應該被看作受法律保護的人。

本句應譯為：但是一個早產(chǎn)嬰兒就是一個早產(chǎn)嬰兒，一個受法律保護的人，不管他或她是怎么來到這世上的。that state 在這里指出生。

4.  The legislation is aimed at an abortion ...being destroyed.

這句話成分有些復雜。critics call ‘partial-birth'是修飾procedure的，而in which a fetus is partially delivered before being destroyed.這句話又是用于修飾partial-birth 的。

本句應譯為：這項立法目的是針對一種被批評人士稱為部分生產(chǎn)的墮胎方法的。部分生產(chǎn)也就是指在破壞這個胎兒之前只把它部分生出來。

5.  Thirty states and the District of Columbia already have laws against the procedure.

這里"against"的意思相當于"forbid"。

本句應譯為：已經(jīng)有三十個州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)立法禁止這種程序。

課文參考譯文：

活體產(chǎn)嬰依然應該算作胎兒么？

　　在周二晚上，美國眾議院在一次表決中通過了一項活體產(chǎn)嬰保護法案。這份法案很簡單，只有三個段落，這將對聯(lián)邦關于"活體產(chǎn)嬰"的定義編入法典。特別是，有了該法案后，一些諸如"人、人類、兒童、個體"的術(shù)語不論什么時候出現(xiàn)在聯(lián)邦法律或規(guī)章中時，將被解讀為包括了每一個已出生的人類活體胎兒。"活體產(chǎn)嬰"這個詞條由此被定義為完全從他或她的母體中分離出來，有心跳，有呼吸或者有主動肌群的活動。

　　該條目已經(jīng)進入了很多州的司法解釋。

　　周二晚7：39，美聯(lián)社駐華盛頓辦事處發(fā)出了一個急件，開頭如下："國會周二舉行投票表決，將完全脫離母體的嬰兒定義為活體產(chǎn)嬰。這將給予這些胎兒們完全的法律保護。""胎兒"這個詞條在接下來的報道中被反復不斷地提到。

　　很快，我和至少一個讀過這篇報道的人指出，美聯(lián)社的值班編輯仍用"胎兒"一詞指代一個已經(jīng)全部生出來并成活了的人類的嬰兒已經(jīng)不大準確了。如果一個嬰兒早產(chǎn)并成活，那么應該稱之為"早產(chǎn)嬰兒"或"早產(chǎn)寶寶"而不是"胎兒"。

　　有時候，引產(chǎn)被用來作為墮胎的一種辦法，但這往往導致產(chǎn)下活體嬰兒。這種情況常被稱為活體生產(chǎn)墮胎。有時候，其他墮胎方法也會導致產(chǎn)下活嬰。但是一個早產(chǎn)嬰兒已經(jīng)是一個早產(chǎn)嬰兒，是受法律保護的一個人，而不管他或她是怎么來到世上。

　　遺憾的是，美聯(lián)社沒有改正他們的錯誤。取而代之的是美聯(lián)社的編輯們將最初的錯誤更嚴重化了。在他們發(fā)送的補充報道中，有這樣一條陳述："這項立法目的是針對一種被批評人士稱為部分生產(chǎn)的墮胎方法的。部分生產(chǎn)也就是指在破壞這個胎兒之前只把它部分生出來。三十個州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)已經(jīng)立法反對這種墮胎方法。"

　　事實上，活產(chǎn)嬰兒保護法案并沒有限制部分生產(chǎn)法墮胎。在一次部分生產(chǎn)墮胎中，胎兒或者可以稱為嬰兒的大部分都被生出來，但是頭部依然留在母體子宮內(nèi)，直到被穿孔。因此命名為部分生產(chǎn)。被部分生產(chǎn)破壞掉的胎兒沒有觸碰H.R.2175號法案所說的"完全離開他或她的母體"的限制條件，因此不能說是違法。而且，美聯(lián)社提到的法案限制的是活體生產(chǎn)，而不是限制部分生產(chǎn)法墮胎。據(jù)國會司法委員會的說法，H.R.2175將活體產(chǎn)嬰編入法典，是符合州立法的目的的。據(jù)此，三十個州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)將H.R.中的定義原封不動的搬入到它們自己的法典中。（哥倫比亞特區(qū)此前從未有過一項關于部分生產(chǎn)法墮胎的法律。）