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 incorporateed 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 “l(fā)ive 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 “l(fā)ive birth，” not laws restricting partial-birth abortion. According to the House Judiciary subcommittee that H.R. 2175 have codified the definition of “l(fā)ive 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.

　　答案與題解

　　1. [C] 仔細(xì)閱讀文中第一段可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，該段講述國(guó)會(huì)通過新法案重點(diǎn)是從法案的影響上來談的。其影響就是會(huì)對(duì)關(guān)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(xì)節(jié)與主旨對(duì)映題。此類題型給出文中一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)并提供選項(xiàng)讓考生選擇，此時(shí)考生選擇答案必須依照原文的主旨進(jìn)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(rèn)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(xì)比較原文可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，文中作者認(rèn)為胎兒和嬰兒的主要區(qū)別在于胎兒不被法律認(rèn)可為人，而嬰兒則可以受到此類保護(hù)。

　　4. [B] 細(xì)節(jié)題。仔細(xì)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(xiàng) D 項(xiàng)。D 項(xiàng)的表述不是美聯(lián)社的觀點(diǎn)。在文中，作者提到美聯(lián)社時(shí)說他們是錯(cuò)用了詞語(yǔ)，把活產(chǎn)嬰兒說成是胎兒。注意，這里作者認(rèn)為是美聯(lián)社稱活產(chǎn)的嬰兒為胎兒是用詞錯(cuò)誤而并沒有認(rèn)為美聯(lián)社不把產(chǎn)下的活嬰兒當(dāng)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?jiǎn)栴}，即使問得很客觀，但歸根結(jié)底這是篇闡述作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)的議論文，只有緊緊抓住作者的觀點(diǎn)才能得出正確選項(xiàng)。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(yǔ)序的調(diào)整上。只要把語(yǔ)序調(diào)整，符合漢語(yǔ)習(xí)慣本句話就不難翻譯了。本句應(yīng)譯為：周二晚 7：39，美聯(lián)社駐華盛頓辦事處發(fā)出了一個(gè)急件，開頭如下：”國(guó)會(huì)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(hù)�！�

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

　　3. But a premature infant is a …h(huán)e or she reached that state. 這是一個(gè)強(qiáng)調(diào)句，兩次重復(fù)提到“premature infant”目的在于強(qiáng)調(diào)早產(chǎn)兒應(yīng)該被看作受法律保護(hù)的人。本句應(yīng)譯為：但是一個(gè)早產(chǎn)嬰兒就是一個(gè)早產(chǎn)嬰兒，一個(gè)受法律保護(hù)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(fù)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(yīng)譯為：這項(xiàng)立法目的是針對(duì)一種被批評(píng)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(gè)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(dāng)于“forbid”。本句應(yīng)譯為：已經(jīng)有三十個(gè)州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)立法禁止這種程序。

　　參考譯文

　　活體產(chǎn)嬰依然應(yīng)該算作胎兒么?

　　在周二晚上，美國(guó)眾議院在一次表決中通過了一項(xiàng)活體產(chǎn)嬰保護(hù)法案。這份法案很簡(jiǎn)單，只有三個(gè)段落，這將對(duì)聯(lián)邦關(guān)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(gè)體”的術(shù)語(yǔ)不論什么時(shí)候出現(xiàn)在聯(lián)邦法律或規(guī)章中時(shí)，將被解讀為包括了每一個(gè)已出生的人類活體胎兒�！盎铙w產(chǎn)嬰”這個(gè)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(dòng)肌群的活動(dòng)。該條目已經(jīng)進(jìn)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(gè)急件，開頭如下：“國(guó)會(huì)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(hù)�！薄疤�兒”這個(gè)詞條在接下來的報(bào)道中被反復(fù)不斷地提到。 很快，我和至少一個(gè)讀過這篇報(bào)道的人指出，美聯(lián)社的值班編輯仍用“胎兒”一詞指代一個(gè)已經(jīng)全部生出來并成活了的人類的嬰兒已經(jīng)不大準(zhǔn)確了。如果一個(gè)嬰兒早產(chǎn)并成活，那么應(yīng)該稱之為“早產(chǎn)嬰兒”或“早產(chǎn)寶寶”而不是“胎兒”。

　　有時(shí)候，引產(chǎn)被用來作為墮胎的一種辦法，但這往往導(dǎo)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(shí)候，其他墮胎方法也會(huì)導(dǎo)致產(chǎn)下活嬰。但是一個(gè)早產(chǎn)嬰兒已經(jīng)是一個(gè)早產(chǎn)嬰兒，是受法律保護(hù)的一個(gè)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(cuò)誤。取而代之的是美聯(lián)社的編輯們將最初的錯(cuò)誤更嚴(yán)重化了。在他們發(fā)送的補(bǔ)充報(bào)道中，有這樣一條陳述：“這項(xiàng)立法目的是針對(duì)一種被批評(píng)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(gè)胎兒之前只把它部分生出來。三十個(gè)州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)已經(jīng)立法反對(duì)這種墮胎方法�！�

　　事實(shí)上，活產(chǎn)嬰兒保護(hù)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(hào)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(guó)會(huì)司法委員會(huì)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(gè)州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)將 H.R.中的定義原封不動(dòng)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(xiàng)關(guān)于部分生產(chǎn)法墮胎的法律。

　　編輯推薦：

　　各省市2015年考研報(bào)考費(fèi)用匯總

　　2015年考研網(wǎng)上正式報(bào)名入口已開通 點(diǎn)擊進(jìn)入

　　2015年考研政治資料：2014年國(guó)內(nèi)外時(shí)事政治熱點(diǎn)

　　2015年考研政治十大重要考點(diǎn)預(yù)測(cè)

　　考試吧考研題庫(kù)(新增數(shù)學(xué)三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗(yàn)!