我们一起堕胎":土耳其的堕胎网络和获得非法/合法堕胎的机会。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 FAMILY STUDIES
Culture, Health & Sexuality Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1080/13691058.2023.2301410
Sinem Esengen
{"title":"我们一起堕胎\":土耳其的堕胎网络和获得非法/合法堕胎的机会。","authors":"Sinem Esengen","doi":"10.1080/13691058.2023.2301410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abortion was legalised in Turkey in 1983 with a 10-week limit, restrictions on who could provide abortions, and spousal or parental consent requirements. Currently, although abortion is legal, because of structural barriers, access is restricted (O'Neil, Altuntaş, and Keskin 2020). This study aimed to investigate how women strategically mobilise their social networks to overcome such restrictions to abortion care. Drawing from 25 in-depth interviews with urban-educated cis-women aged 24-30, I identify three groups within abortion networks: included, excluded and ambiguous. While included groups comprised largely of female family and friends, excluded groups were male family members and organisations, and the ambiguous category included health professionals and partners. Supporting findings in other contexts, individuals initially utilise their abortion networks to access the provider, they then build abortion solidarity networks to act as buffers against groups they wish to exclude during the abortion experience. Additionally, I show that excluded and ambiguous networks also impact abortion access, decision-making, and experience, even pushing individuals to follow through with illegal or semi-legal abortion procedures. Findings draw attention to the structural boundaries surrounding abortion laws, how patriarchal institutions make access to abortion care and abortion networks challenging, and how social networks may be utilised to alleviate such obstacles.</p>","PeriodicalId":10799,"journal":{"name":"Culture, Health & Sexuality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'We had that abortion together': abortion networks and access to il/legal abortions in Turkey.\",\"authors\":\"Sinem Esengen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13691058.2023.2301410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Abortion was legalised in Turkey in 1983 with a 10-week limit, restrictions on who could provide abortions, and spousal or parental consent requirements. Currently, although abortion is legal, because of structural barriers, access is restricted (O'Neil, Altuntaş, and Keskin 2020). This study aimed to investigate how women strategically mobilise their social networks to overcome such restrictions to abortion care. Drawing from 25 in-depth interviews with urban-educated cis-women aged 24-30, I identify three groups within abortion networks: included, excluded and ambiguous. While included groups comprised largely of female family and friends, excluded groups were male family members and organisations, and the ambiguous category included health professionals and partners. Supporting findings in other contexts, individuals initially utilise their abortion networks to access the provider, they then build abortion solidarity networks to act as buffers against groups they wish to exclude during the abortion experience. Additionally, I show that excluded and ambiguous networks also impact abortion access, decision-making, and experience, even pushing individuals to follow through with illegal or semi-legal abortion procedures. Findings draw attention to the structural boundaries surrounding abortion laws, how patriarchal institutions make access to abortion care and abortion networks challenging, and how social networks may be utilised to alleviate such obstacles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Culture, Health & Sexuality\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Culture, Health & Sexuality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2023.2301410\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture, Health & Sexuality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2023.2301410","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

土耳其于1983年将堕胎合法化,但规定了10周的期限,限制了提供堕胎服务的人员,并要求获得配偶或父母的同意。目前,尽管堕胎是合法的,但由于结构性障碍,获得堕胎的机会受到限制(O'Neil、Altuntaş 和 Keskin,2020 年)。本研究旨在探讨妇女如何战略性地动员其社交网络,以克服堕胎护理方面的这些限制。通过对 25 名年龄在 24-30 岁的城市受过教育的顺式女性进行深入访谈,我在堕胎网络中确定了三个群体:纳入群体、排除群体和模糊群体。被纳入的群体主要由女性家人和朋友组成,被排除的群体则是男性家庭成员和组织,而模棱两可的群体则包括医疗专业人员和伴侣。与其他情况下的研究结果相吻合的是,个人最初利用其堕胎网络与提供者取得联系,然后建立堕胎团结网络,在堕胎过程中对他们希望排除在外的群体起到缓冲作用。此外,我还表明,被排斥和模糊的网络也会影响堕胎的获取、决策和经历,甚至会促使个体实施非法或半合法的堕胎程序。研究结果提请人们注意围绕堕胎法的结构性界限,父权体制如何使获得堕胎护理和堕胎网络具有挑战性,以及如何利用社会网络来缓解这些障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'We had that abortion together': abortion networks and access to il/legal abortions in Turkey.

Abortion was legalised in Turkey in 1983 with a 10-week limit, restrictions on who could provide abortions, and spousal or parental consent requirements. Currently, although abortion is legal, because of structural barriers, access is restricted (O'Neil, Altuntaş, and Keskin 2020). This study aimed to investigate how women strategically mobilise their social networks to overcome such restrictions to abortion care. Drawing from 25 in-depth interviews with urban-educated cis-women aged 24-30, I identify three groups within abortion networks: included, excluded and ambiguous. While included groups comprised largely of female family and friends, excluded groups were male family members and organisations, and the ambiguous category included health professionals and partners. Supporting findings in other contexts, individuals initially utilise their abortion networks to access the provider, they then build abortion solidarity networks to act as buffers against groups they wish to exclude during the abortion experience. Additionally, I show that excluded and ambiguous networks also impact abortion access, decision-making, and experience, even pushing individuals to follow through with illegal or semi-legal abortion procedures. Findings draw attention to the structural boundaries surrounding abortion laws, how patriarchal institutions make access to abortion care and abortion networks challenging, and how social networks may be utilised to alleviate such obstacles.

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
4.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
80
×
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