查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 父母權利義務之定性、質變與複製--優生保健法修正草案第十一條第三項規定之商榷
- 如今,批判還可能嗎?--與汪暉商榷一個批判的現代主義計畫及其問題
- John Makeham訪談林安梧論「新儒學」與「後新儒學」(2)
- John Makeham訪談林安梧論「新儒學」與「後新儒學」(1)
- 福爾摩沙意識型態--試論日本殖民統治下臺灣民族運動「民族文化」論述的形成(1919-1937)
- 國家主義與意識型態的視覺性--「醜現代性:看不見的那一面」研討會紀實一
- 論現代運動中之意識型態
- 跳出妒恨的認同政治,進入解放的培力政治--串聯尼采和工運(或社運)的嘗試思考
- 現代性與其批判:普遍主義與特殊主義的問題
- 哈伯瑪斯「批判」與「理性」的哲學觀及其在教育上的啟示
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 父母權利義務之定性、質變與複製--優生保健法修正草案第十一條第三項規定之商榷=The Legal Nature, Metamorphosis and Copy of the Right and Duty of the Parents: To Discuss the Section 3. Article 11 of the Amendment of the Genetic Health Law |
---|---|
作 者 | 郭德厚; | 書刊名 | 國立中正大學法學集刊 |
卷 期 | 25 2008.11[民97.11] |
頁 次 | 頁179-226 |
分類號 | 411.91 |
關鍵詞 | 父母權利; 父母義務; 母職化; 意識型態; 婦女身體自主權; 現代性; The right of the parents; The duty of the parents; Maternalization; Ideology; The right of women's body self-determination; Modernity; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 父母權利義務之提出與國家權力之規整,固然主要目的在於保障子女權益,惟規範制定者受到母職化意識型態之影響,逐漸將父母義務質變為母職義務予以理解,而優生保健法更將之複製於已婚懷胎婦女與胎兒之間的關係。此舉除不當限制婦女身體自主權之外,更據此賦予已婚懷孕婦女之男性配偶,可藉由「同意」或「被告知」之法定方式行使其根本不存在的父親權利。此一規範論述不但減損完整婦女身體自主權,更隱含有施行人工流產即等同「母職失格」之道德譴責。本文認為,立法者應重新思考優生保健法修正草案隱藏之母職性別化與性別歧視傾向,切莫以形式上崇高之權利保障修辭,而扭曲父母權利義務之內部關係。 |
英文摘要 | For protecting the best interest of the child, we will pay more attention to discuss the right and duty of the parents and the national power. But the ideology of the maternalization is a harmful influence that affects the whole epistemology of the law system and the metamorphosis is gradually from the duty of the parents to the duty of the motherhood. In addition, the Genetic Health Law copies above of false concept to the relationship between the married pregnant woman and the fetus. Such method not only limits the the right of women's body self-determination, but also gives their husband to exercise a nonexistent right of the parents. Namely, the normative discourse not only derogates from the right of women's body self-determination, but also hints that the abortion is omission of the motherhood. I considered that lawmaker should be avert the sexual discrimination in the Amendment of the Genetic Health Law and further change it. It should not be formally elevated the rhetoric of the protection of the right, or it will be distorted the internal relationship of the right and duty between the parents. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。