Neoconservative camouflage: the datafication of abortion debates in Ecuador

IF 1 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
María Elissa Torres Carrasco
{"title":"Neoconservative camouflage: the datafication of abortion debates in Ecuador","authors":"María Elissa Torres Carrasco","doi":"10.1080/25729861.2022.2110356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyses the controversy between neoconservatives and prochoice groups in their political use of abortion data in Ecuador. Despite the fact that there is a huge underreporting of abortion in the country – since it is an illegal process, with two exceptions – I keep track of how the narratives on this issue have changed from a moral and religious tone to a datified discourse focused on “science” and human rights where both neoconservative and prochoice groups are forced to produce their own studies, data, and conclusions with the little information available. Combining statistics together with a discourse analysis of the debates on the decriminalization of abortion for rape in 2019 in the National Assembly and the debate on the Constitutional Court in 2021, I observe the controversy that develops in the use of data. In conversation with literature on social studies of science, technology, and techno politics, I seek to contribute to the debate on the production and political use of data directly related to human rights, with an emphasis on women's rights in Latin America.","PeriodicalId":36898,"journal":{"name":"Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2110356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article analyses the controversy between neoconservatives and prochoice groups in their political use of abortion data in Ecuador. Despite the fact that there is a huge underreporting of abortion in the country – since it is an illegal process, with two exceptions – I keep track of how the narratives on this issue have changed from a moral and religious tone to a datified discourse focused on “science” and human rights where both neoconservative and prochoice groups are forced to produce their own studies, data, and conclusions with the little information available. Combining statistics together with a discourse analysis of the debates on the decriminalization of abortion for rape in 2019 in the National Assembly and the debate on the Constitutional Court in 2021, I observe the controversy that develops in the use of data. In conversation with literature on social studies of science, technology, and techno politics, I seek to contribute to the debate on the production and political use of data directly related to human rights, with an emphasis on women's rights in Latin America.
新保守主义的伪装:厄瓜多尔堕胎辩论的数据化
本文分析了厄瓜多尔新保守主义者和支持堕胎团体在堕胎数据的政治使用上的争议。尽管这个国家对堕胎的报道有很大的不足——因为这是一个非法的过程,除了两个例外——我一直在追踪关于这个问题的叙述是如何从道德和宗教的基调转变为一种满足的话语,专注于“科学”和人权,新保守主义和支持堕胎的团体都被迫根据很少的信息提出自己的研究、数据和结论。结合2019年国会关于强奸堕胎除罪化的辩论和2021年宪法法院辩论的话语分析,笔者观察到了在数据使用上产生的争议。在与科学、技术和技术政治的社会研究文献的对话中,我试图为与人权直接相关的数据的生产和政治使用的辩论做出贡献,重点是拉丁美洲的妇女权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society
Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信