维持例外:质疑堕胎的妊娠限制

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
E. Millar
{"title":"维持例外:质疑堕胎的妊娠限制","authors":"E. Millar","doi":"10.1177/09646639211032317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gestational limits on abortion are often seen as a condition for decriminalisation. Focusing on the final reports of three institutional law reform inquiries into abortion in Australia, this article argues that gestational limits were recommended through foreclosing the subject position of the unwillingly pregnant woman who experiences gestational time as a threat to her bodily integrity and imagined future. Structural features of law reform commissions tethered models of decriminalisation to the era of criminalisation. Abortion was also rendered meaningful in the reports through discursive tropes that centred foetal viability and constructed later abortion in terms of a delay that required explanation, with the medico-judicial categories used to explain this delay – which distinguished between ‘medical’ and ‘psychosocial’ abortions – recentring the decision-making authority of doctors. Gestational limits on abortion rearticulate the exceptionality of abortion, reinscribing the illegitimacy of abortion and the people who have them, at least at later stages of pregnancy.","PeriodicalId":47163,"journal":{"name":"Social & Legal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maintaining exceptionality: Interrogating gestational limits for abortion\",\"authors\":\"E. Millar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09646639211032317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Gestational limits on abortion are often seen as a condition for decriminalisation. Focusing on the final reports of three institutional law reform inquiries into abortion in Australia, this article argues that gestational limits were recommended through foreclosing the subject position of the unwillingly pregnant woman who experiences gestational time as a threat to her bodily integrity and imagined future. Structural features of law reform commissions tethered models of decriminalisation to the era of criminalisation. Abortion was also rendered meaningful in the reports through discursive tropes that centred foetal viability and constructed later abortion in terms of a delay that required explanation, with the medico-judicial categories used to explain this delay – which distinguished between ‘medical’ and ‘psychosocial’ abortions – recentring the decision-making authority of doctors. Gestational limits on abortion rearticulate the exceptionality of abortion, reinscribing the illegitimacy of abortion and the people who have them, at least at later stages of pregnancy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social & Legal Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social & Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211032317\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social & Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211032317","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

对堕胎的妊娠期限制通常被视为合法化的条件。关注澳大利亚三次机构法律改革调查的最终报告,本文认为,通过排除不情愿怀孕的妇女的主体地位,建议限制妊娠期,因为怀孕期对她的身体完整性和想象的未来构成了威胁。法律改革委员会的结构特点将非刑事化模式与刑事化时代捆绑在一起。在报告中,通过以胎儿生存能力为中心的话语修辞使堕胎变得有意义,并根据需要解释的延迟来构建后来的堕胎,并使用医学-司法类别来解释这种延迟-区分"医疗"堕胎和"社会心理"堕胎-重新集中医生的决策权。对堕胎的妊娠期限制重申了堕胎的特殊性,重新定义了堕胎和堕胎者的非法性,至少在怀孕后期是这样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Maintaining exceptionality: Interrogating gestational limits for abortion
Gestational limits on abortion are often seen as a condition for decriminalisation. Focusing on the final reports of three institutional law reform inquiries into abortion in Australia, this article argues that gestational limits were recommended through foreclosing the subject position of the unwillingly pregnant woman who experiences gestational time as a threat to her bodily integrity and imagined future. Structural features of law reform commissions tethered models of decriminalisation to the era of criminalisation. Abortion was also rendered meaningful in the reports through discursive tropes that centred foetal viability and constructed later abortion in terms of a delay that required explanation, with the medico-judicial categories used to explain this delay – which distinguished between ‘medical’ and ‘psychosocial’ abortions – recentring the decision-making authority of doctors. Gestational limits on abortion rearticulate the exceptionality of abortion, reinscribing the illegitimacy of abortion and the people who have them, at least at later stages of pregnancy.
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
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES was founded in 1992 to develop progressive, interdisciplinary and critical approaches towards socio-legal study. At the heart of the journal has been a commitment towards feminist, post-colonialist, and socialist economic perspectives on law. These remain core animating principles. We aim to create an intellectual space where diverse traditions and critical approaches within legal study meet. We particularly welcome work in new fields of socio-legal study, as well as non-Western scholarship.
×
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