- 期刊
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
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子以理解，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，可籍由「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。
並列摘要
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.
被引用紀錄
延伸閱讀
- 曾習賢（2000）。評析非訟事件法有關親權行使之增訂條文。律師雜誌，(248)，35-42。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=a0000019-200005-x-248-35-42-a
- 施慧玲、紀冠伶（2018）。離婚訴訟「先搶先贏」的實務經驗敘事分析－兼論幼年子女最佳利益的司法裁量基準。法令月刊，69(8)，75-102。https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.201808_69(8).0005
- 周靜華（2012）。子女姓氏權之研究－民法親屬編修正實施之回應性評估〔碩士論文，國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-0602201216202800
- 宋易修（2020）。QA Preliminary Exploration of the Constitutionality of the Ill-gotten Party Assets Act: The Substantive Conception of the Rule of law and Recognition of the Authoritarian Past。台灣人權學刊，5(4)，113-120。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=22246622-202012-202012140008-202012140008-113-120
- 陳匡正、李依潔（2021）。Protections Regarding Public Servants' Right to Disclosure and Right of Paternity: From the Perspective of Equal Protection under the Constitution。華岡法粹，(70)，137-181。https://doi.org/10.6868/HKLR.202106_(70).04