Think about Justic independently: sale motherhood

In this open course fair, we will discuss the issue of a person's Lun, about the provision of eggs and surrogacy transactions, and whether the contract is valid on a moral level.

At the beginning, both parties knew the entire transaction process and signed a contract. Then, my mother turned back and said, Is the contract still valid?

In China, this is relatively simple, because it does not fall within the scope of legal protection. Aside from the legal level, it is morally necessary to fulfill the contract. There are two reasons: 1. The mother's pregnancy is a long process. When she signed the contract, she was not clear about the mother's love for BB. That is to say, although the contract was voluntary, the information was incomplete at the time, you cannot predict how many babies you love. 2. This is no different from buying and selling babies. Therefore, if the mother repents, the contract is invalid.

In fact, I think the essence of the whole behavior is to sell people, but to the physiological father of a baby. Anyone who buys or sells a person as a commodity is evil and non-moral. Therefore, selling infants and children is a serious crime, which is more serious than selling white powder. For some reason, the loss of the reproductive function of the couple is a value of sympathy, which is handled by heaven. It can be adopted, but it cannot be bought or sold. People are not commodities.

I remember that in the past, CCTV had a legal program where a mother sold just-born children and sold them twice. As a result, she was convicted of selling babies. Even though it was her own child, she was just not abducted, but sold. I think there is no essential difference between the two cases. No matter who the other party is, it is a process of buying and selling. We have been away from the slave society for more than two thousand years.

In some cases, it is difficult to judge whether it is paid eggs (whether it is voluntary or in other names, the nutrition fee and the next layer of fees, should still be considered as a paid transaction of goods), but the adopted mother will be pregnant. It was said that the market was very good. This is similar to paid sperm, but it has a greater impact on the mother's body. In this case, the so-called first reason is not true. In the process, the genetic mother did not invest time and energy. From the perspective of "selfish genes" of Dawkins, even profitable, giving its genes more opportunities for transmission. Therefore, in terms of contract relationship, the contract should be valid if it meets the contact conditions. The gap between the egg and the baby is the legal gap between abortion and baby killing. In this way, the mother cannot repent and the contract is valid. Of course, I believe that such a contract should be unprotected.

We talked about morality and justice, and told about a small thing that happened yesterday. The vegetable market is being decorated, with half of the barrier and narrow channels. There is a mother-in-law in front of the channel. The operation is slow, just in a wangpu edge. Therefore, there is only one channel in the middle, and the people who push the green car on the opposite side keep going, as a result, I stopped when I was behind my mother-in-law. There was a 40-50 man behind me, who also stopped and reminded me constantly. There was a mother-in-law in front of me. He said you were in the past and I said "You Are In the past ". He turned out a strange voice, and then reluctantly forced a cross-border car blue. This is simple, but there are several logic problems.

Abstract events: A (mother-in-law), B (me), and C (middle-aged male) are arranged in A column. C. I want to crawl my head and blame B for not crawling my head.

Logic error 1: C follows B and does not surpass B, but B does not surpass A. This is A typical dual standard. Therefore, I do not think C has the right to request B. (Remove the child with respect to the old and the old ).

Logic error 2: according to the law of the jungle, you have to eat yourself. You have to pass by your own strength and pass by yourself. According to this principle, C should be his own business in the past, so he cannot complain.

Logic error 3: If you keep the rules, wait and wait for a while. Why do you want others not to be in the queue? If you don't keep the rules, you can crawl by yourself and you cannot ask others to first pass. This is a logical error. In any aspect, it is C's own problem, but C's problem is attributed to B. This is a pass-on, the biggest mistake, and the most annoying. However, we often see such people, especially some groups.