堕胎与生育自主权:关于区别对待方法的一些想法

Q4 Social Sciences
Natalia Rueda
{"title":"堕胎与生育自主权:关于区别对待方法的一些想法","authors":"Natalia Rueda","doi":"10.3935/zpfz.73.4.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In law, the debate on the voluntary termination of a pregnancy has not been exempt from the influence of extralegal matters: prejudices, moral and religious beliefs, and political and ideological convictions. Although the focus may be purely on legal aspects, it is subject to multiple subjective interpretations. Consequently, the various constitutional clauses relating to the protection of life (dependent or independent) also serve to support permissive and prohibitionist judicial and legal trends. These two contradictory positions prevent the consideration of the multiple facets of the problem; as a result, it is difficult to obtain a concerted response. Through qualitative research, this paper explores some of the problems related to the traditional approach to abortion. This article highlights some of the barriers to the exercise of abortion rights. It outlines some criteria and methodological tools that could help public officials make decisions and define public policy without stereotypes and guaranteeing women’s human rights. Although at some point access to abortion is recognized, this does not imply that it is an acquired right. On the contrary, it is a right that faces constant risk and threat owing to the influence of the ideological interests.","PeriodicalId":34908,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abortion and Reproductive Autonomy: Some Ideas About Differentiated Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Natalia Rueda\",\"doi\":\"10.3935/zpfz.73.4.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In law, the debate on the voluntary termination of a pregnancy has not been exempt from the influence of extralegal matters: prejudices, moral and religious beliefs, and political and ideological convictions. Although the focus may be purely on legal aspects, it is subject to multiple subjective interpretations. Consequently, the various constitutional clauses relating to the protection of life (dependent or independent) also serve to support permissive and prohibitionist judicial and legal trends. These two contradictory positions prevent the consideration of the multiple facets of the problem; as a result, it is difficult to obtain a concerted response. Through qualitative research, this paper explores some of the problems related to the traditional approach to abortion. This article highlights some of the barriers to the exercise of abortion rights. It outlines some criteria and methodological tools that could help public officials make decisions and define public policy without stereotypes and guaranteeing women’s human rights. Although at some point access to abortion is recognized, this does not imply that it is an acquired right. On the contrary, it is a right that faces constant risk and threat owing to the influence of the ideological interests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.73.4.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.73.4.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在法律方面,关于自愿终止妊娠的辩论也无法避免受到法外因素的影响:偏见、道德和宗教信仰,以及政治和意识形态信念。虽然讨论的重点可能纯粹是法律方面的问题,但也会受到多种主观解释的影响。因此,与保护生命(从属或独立)有关的各种宪法条款也起到了支持放任主义和禁止主义司法和法律趋势的作用。这两种相互矛盾的立场阻碍了对问题多方面的考虑;因此,很难获得一致的回应。通过定性研究,本文探讨了与传统堕胎方法相关的一些问题。本文强调了行使堕胎权利的一些障碍。它概述了一些标准和方法工具,这些标准和工具可以帮助政府官员在不带成见的情况下做出决策和制定公共政策,并保障妇女的人权。尽管堕胎权在某些方面得到了承认,但这并不意味着它是一项既得权利。相反,由于意识形态利益的影响,这项权利不断面临风险和威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abortion and Reproductive Autonomy: Some Ideas About Differentiated Approaches
In law, the debate on the voluntary termination of a pregnancy has not been exempt from the influence of extralegal matters: prejudices, moral and religious beliefs, and political and ideological convictions. Although the focus may be purely on legal aspects, it is subject to multiple subjective interpretations. Consequently, the various constitutional clauses relating to the protection of life (dependent or independent) also serve to support permissive and prohibitionist judicial and legal trends. These two contradictory positions prevent the consideration of the multiple facets of the problem; as a result, it is difficult to obtain a concerted response. Through qualitative research, this paper explores some of the problems related to the traditional approach to abortion. This article highlights some of the barriers to the exercise of abortion rights. It outlines some criteria and methodological tools that could help public officials make decisions and define public policy without stereotypes and guaranteeing women’s human rights. Although at some point access to abortion is recognized, this does not imply that it is an acquired right. On the contrary, it is a right that faces constant risk and threat owing to the influence of the ideological interests.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 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