她是好人,但她是對的嗎?
Vera Drake (2004)

墮胎的爭議相信不用多言:簡而言之,一方說婦女有權選擇,另一方則認為胎兒有生存權,雙方一直爭論得面紅耳赤,有時甚至可以鬧出人命,但這問題爭論幾十年還是沒結果。

探討倫理學問題,電影及文學啟發之處或更勝哲學論文,因為二者提供了一個具體處境思考.叫人明白下道德判斷究竟是怎麼一回事,而非只是停留在紙上談兵的層次。畢竟,道德判斷並非抽象的,不是單靠一兩個道德原則便無往而不利。英國導演Mike Leigh的Vera Drake是今年看過的電影最為發人深省的一部。電影沒有鮮明立場,只是默默的把一個Vera Drake的在50年代的遭遇,巨細無遺的呈現出來,讓大家思考。除了墮胎對錯外,箇中的倫理問題,例如家庭關係,好心做壞事的問題等,都很值得思考。

主角Vera Drake不是雄辯滔滔的婦解份子,她甚至連清楚解釋的能力也沒有。她只是一個好心腸的太太,一切行動都出於善意,正如其丈夫所言。電影亦輕輕提過Vera Drake是私生女,也解釋了為何她如此同情那些被迫懷孕的婦女。電影一開始便極力營造Vera Drake是一個心腸好得不能再好的太太,叫觀眾希望有這樣的鄰居,甚至這樣的母親。鏡頭一轉,Vera Drake拿着水泵,像慈母一樣,安慰着驚惶失惜的女孩,為她墮胎,跟大眾對非法墮胎的印象完全沾不上邊。

Vera Drake很愛護她的家人,並一直隱瞞自己的副業。然而一名經她墮胎的女孩險些喪命,令Vera Drake的秘密曝光,亦令家人平靜生活起波瀾。電影很仔細地交代警察盤問的經過,我想就算不認同她行為的,眼見她被盤問亦會感到難過。她知道自己所做的不為社會所容,但卻又活像無辜者,連盤問她的警員亦感到為難。她說她不收錢,亦不用金屬工具,完全不像其他非法墮胎的同行,她有的只是一顆善心。

Vera Drake人好,但很笨,她被Lili騙了那麼多年,以為自己一直義務助人,其實只是人家撈油水的工具。她一心要幫助那些沒有選擇情況下懷孕的婦女,然而當Lili介紹她為一名紅杏出牆的妻子墮胎時,Vera Drake雖然認為不妥,但只說了一句:「這不太對吧?」仍然接受了差使。她不分青紅皂白,有求必應,可能正是她最大的過失。

問題來了,她是出於善心,但她是對的嗎?電影並沒有作出判斷,但在講述Vera Drake的故事同時,亦描述了一名因姦成孕的女孩的遭遇。她沒有找非法墮胎,只是循合法途徑求助.但電影結束時她依然徬徨無依。墮胎對錯實在很難一刀切的論斷。

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. 倉海君 says:

    你似乎是問兩條問題:

    1.好心做壞事,是否該受責備?

    如果那人已盡自己所能去估量一切後果並避免犯錯,而最後依然有無可估計的錯誤發生的話,那麼此人就不必為超乎自己能力的後果負責了。重點是「盡自己所能」此一免責條件,其實外人不易判斷。但以你舉的例子來說:Vera Drake雖然認為不妥,但只說了一句:「這不太對吧?」仍然接受了差使--她明顯沒有盡力分清對錯。畢竟,suspension of judgment不等同於無懈可擊的ignorance。如果好人受罰太令你神傷的話,也只能怪她意志薄弱任人擺佈。因懦弱而受苦,我覺得是天公地道的,在這方面我跟《失樂園》中的Satan不謀而合:To be weak is miserable/ Doing or suffering.

    2.墮胎有沒有錯?

    要回答此問題,首先要解決以下問題:

    --胎兒是生命,但算不算人呢?何時才算?
    --有沒有靈魂在胎中?如果有,你拆掉他的屋是否有違「鬼權」?

    這些問題很難有答案,問自己良心就是了。如果你真心相信胎不是人,當丟垃圾又何妨?如果你認為人生是苦,禁止他輪迴也未嘗不是功德。但如果連你自己也覺得是殺害無辜,我相信「墮胎有沒有錯」這問題根本就不必問了。以Vera Drake為例,她根本就不思想不判斷,這種人可以極好,也可以極壞,但都是偶然的(因為她根本沒有意志,只有本能),所以她下世投胎,萬一不是好人,就肯定是《深山大屠殺》的主角。

  2. little Alex says:

    First, I totally agree with Mr. Chong Hoi that there are several issues at play here.

    One is if good but simple people can be duped into committing evil acts, and I think the answer is yes. It has always been yes.

    But to focus on the issue of abortion:
    a) like Mr. Chong Hoi said, when does a fetus becomes a baby? I mean, even in our own traditions, we didn’t used to acknowledge the status of a baby until it’s one month old, because the infant mortality rate was so high back then;

    b) even if I think abortions are immoral, is it our place to say that it has to be kept illegal? I support a society in which abortions wouldn’t need to happen, but the process would still be legal. banning it outright would only endanger the lives of the women who want to take this extreme step, but does nothing to help the fetuses.

    I guess for me, the issue was actually pretty clear cut, as I’ve always been pro-choice (but anti-abortion)…

  3. shakti says:

    Religious issues aside, Vera Drake can be read in comparative context with Claude Chabrol’s “Une affaire de femmes” (1988). In my opinion the English play is politically too compromising to the extent of being cheesy.

  4. L says:

    Pro-choice but anti-abortion? Does it mean the woman should “choose” to carry the fetus to term? It seems that it’s the only choice left then, isn’t it? And if it’s the only “choice” left, is it still a choice? Or does “choice” here mean the same as the one in “pro-choice”?

  5. little Alex says:

    This is a bit late, so I don’t know if it’s gonna reach anyone, but here we go.

    @L

    I think I’ve explained myself pretty well in my reply. Keep it legal but change the societal conditions so that it’d be unnecessary for anyone to go that extreme step. Better sex education, wider contraceptive use, etc.