#Recommend a book every day##Read a little book every day##我推荐的书 #
Freedom has always faced two major threats, one is the yearning for utopia, and the other is that people confuse freedom with indulgence. - Lord Acton
To ask you a few questions, how the body is free to use is not one of the rights you pursue? Do you think body organs can be leased out for lending?
Teacher Luo Xiang mainly talked about X criminal law in the fourth chapter of "Details of the Rule of Law", in order to avoid the situation of full X, so it is still necessary to talk about freedom and insurance.
First of all, the free use of the body certainly represents the free use and the freedom to choose not to use, then No Means No is not so difficult to understand, do you agree?
In the past, for a long time, women did not have an independent personality status, she was only a kind of property of the husband or father, in this context, in order to show her disagreement, the woman must carry out the "maximum resistance", which may be physical obstruction, or tearing on the clothes. Of course, it is best if you are willing to die, because your family and your reputation will be highly rewarded, emmm, no substantive reward, only verbal praise.
Fortunately, I was not born in that era when I had to die when I needed to. So, the criterion of legal basis in our time is, "not equal not standard", No Means No, saying "no" means disagreeing.
I think of a well-known male writer in the past, who is now a well-known director, and also said something similar to making women physically uncomfortable, they think that the woman's saying "no" is just a symbolic rebellion, that is, making a show, and the woman says "no", just half pushing and half doing.
So, the meaning of freedom here is that you have the right to sincerely believe that "does not equal", I also have the freedom to insist on "not equal to no", that is, to freely decide whether my body wants to be used by you, if your freedom offends my freedom, you have to pay for your prejudice, even the 1991 boxing champion Tyson also needs to take this lesson, because the judge in that case believes that the woman has clearly said "no" in language, according to not equals non-standard, women's language should be respected, Because she's a rational person, when she says "no," your behavior crosses the line and you should stop.
You see, he also needs to pay for his freedom of indulgence and self-righteous prejudice that women say no.
The second question is related to last year's cool case, many people think that the body is their own, how to use nature is also their own decision, so the generation of Y should not become a problem.
The problem, of course, is not how you want to use your body, the problem is that there will be a series of derivative problems on behalf of Y, such as "return" problems, default problems.
Teacher Luo Xiang said that moralism, as opposed to utilitarianism, first believes that people are not commodities, and people can only be purposes, not tools. If you allow Y to be substituted, you are actually treating people as commodities, the womb as tools, and pregnant Y as a service tool.
So, you think, would you like to be a tool? You certainly have the freedom you want to be a tool, but you can't assume that all women are willing to be tools just because you want to be tools. Or, don't take it for granted that your status will save you from being reduced to a tool, after all, if it is really legal, like if people are accustomed to the organ market and think that a person's kidney is really just an ordinary commodity like a mobile phone, that person's dignity will be completely lost.
At a time when everyone is a commodity and a tool, how far do you think you can hide? Do you still want to fully exercise and pursue your freedom to be treated as a commodity and a tool?!
I suddenly remembered that when A certain cool case was held last year, many young girls shouted for her, she had money, so, what happened?
It's not that she has money so she can buy out the months of use of someone else's womb, but what happened to these children is the most common confusion I have when I keep tracking down that case.
What do you think of freedom? Who do you want to love? Want to work if you don't want to work? Tired of seeing the boss's face and resigning? When the mind is dizzy, you want to give birth to him a monkey? Is it freedom?
But what if your freedom is above violating the freedoms of others? You love someone freely, and sleep with a person freely, but if the other party doesn't agree, it doesn't matter? You are free to want a child, but it is too hard to give birth to yourself, so free to buy out the right to use other people's wombs, buy out the right to use other people's organs is really the same as buying a pair of limited edition sneakers? Just because you have money? So what if one day you run out of money? Also facing the situation of being used and bought and sold? Can you still be so happy to be as supportive as you are now?