进入21世纪

F. Amery
{"title":"进入21世纪","authors":"F. Amery","doi":"10.1332/policypress/9781529204995.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores UK abortion debates in the 21st century. It describes new anti-abortion strategies which emerged in the 2000s and went beyond the familiar attacks on abortion providers. It demonstrates how issues such as foetal viability and calls for changes in pre-abortion counselling provision evolved as a consequence both of past anti-abortion activity and how pro-choice feminist actors have made their arguments. The chapter argues that counselling amendments are proposed because they undermine the association between a ‘right to choose’ and feminist politics and call into question the medical authority on which the Abortion Act 1967 was based.","PeriodicalId":405787,"journal":{"name":"Beyond Pro-life and Pro-choice","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Into the 21st Century\",\"authors\":\"F. Amery\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/policypress/9781529204995.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores UK abortion debates in the 21st century. It describes new anti-abortion strategies which emerged in the 2000s and went beyond the familiar attacks on abortion providers. It demonstrates how issues such as foetal viability and calls for changes in pre-abortion counselling provision evolved as a consequence both of past anti-abortion activity and how pro-choice feminist actors have made their arguments. The chapter argues that counselling amendments are proposed because they undermine the association between a ‘right to choose’ and feminist politics and call into question the medical authority on which the Abortion Act 1967 was based.\",\"PeriodicalId\":405787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Beyond Pro-life and Pro-choice\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Beyond Pro-life and Pro-choice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529204995.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beyond Pro-life and Pro-choice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529204995.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章探讨了21世纪英国关于堕胎的辩论。它描述了2000年代出现的新的反堕胎策略,超越了对堕胎提供者的熟悉攻击。它展示了诸如胎儿生存能力和呼吁改变堕胎前咨询条款等问题是如何作为过去反堕胎活动的结果而演变的,以及支持堕胎的女权主义者是如何提出他们的论点的。本章认为,提出咨询修正案是因为它们破坏了"选择权"与女权主义政治之间的联系,并对《1967年堕胎法》所依据的医学权威提出质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Into the 21st Century
This chapter explores UK abortion debates in the 21st century. It describes new anti-abortion strategies which emerged in the 2000s and went beyond the familiar attacks on abortion providers. It demonstrates how issues such as foetal viability and calls for changes in pre-abortion counselling provision evolved as a consequence both of past anti-abortion activity and how pro-choice feminist actors have made their arguments. The chapter argues that counselling amendments are proposed because they undermine the association between a ‘right to choose’ and feminist politics and call into question the medical authority on which the Abortion Act 1967 was based.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信