“少堕胎，多收养”:收养作为解决方案的话语简史

Adoption & Culture Pub Date : 2022-12-23 DOI:10.1353/ado.0.0023

S. Idzik

{"title":"“少堕胎，多收养”:收养作为解决方案的话语简史","authors":"S. Idzik","doi":"10.1353/ado.0.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Popular discourse around the Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization decision framed adoption as an equivalent solution to abortion for the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Proposing adoption as a simple solution to a complex social or political problem is not new, and this article traces a lineage of such arguments, noting the ways that they marginalize both adoptees and birth families.","PeriodicalId":140707,"journal":{"name":"Adoption & Culture","volume":"31 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Less Abortion, More Adoption”: A Brief Discursive History of Adoption as Solution\",\"authors\":\"S. Idzik\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ado.0.0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Popular discourse around the Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization decision framed adoption as an equivalent solution to abortion for the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Proposing adoption as a simple solution to a complex social or political problem is not new, and this article traces a lineage of such arguments, noting the ways that they marginalize both adoptees and birth families.\",\"PeriodicalId\":140707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Adoption & Culture\",\"volume\":\"31 3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Adoption & Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ado.0.0023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adoption & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ado.0.0023","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

围绕多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织(Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization)一案的流行讨论，将收养视为解决意外怀孕问题的一种与堕胎同等的解决方案。将收养作为复杂社会或政治问题的简单解决方案并不新鲜，本文追溯了此类论点的沿路，指出了它们将被收养者和生身家庭都边缘化的方式。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

“Less Abortion, More Adoption”: A Brief Discursive History of Adoption as Solution

Popular discourse around the Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization decision framed adoption as an equivalent solution to abortion for the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Proposing adoption as a simple solution to a complex social or political problem is not new, and this article traces a lineage of such arguments, noting the ways that they marginalize both adoptees and birth families.

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

Adoption & Culture

自引率

0.00%

发文量