We are bodies: politics of the body and maternity
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Reproductive rights have become ever more central in contemporary discussion. Despite a tendentially neutral presentation of the subject, the many correlated factors have deep cultural roots in patriarchy and the exploitation of women. A reflection is proposed on these roots that today seem to explain, not justify, the growing demand for surrogacy. In the following pages, I want to show how from the medical power and the development of the capitalist economy several ideologies are produced that still strengthen the subordination of women.
Keywords:
Downloads
Article Details
References
Almeling, R. (2009). Gender and the Value of Bodily Goods: Commodification in Egg and Sperm Donation, Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer, 72 (3), 37-58.
Atwood, M. (1998), Surfacing, Anchor Books (1972).
Bandelj, N., Wherry, F.F., Zelizer, V.A. (eds) (2017). Money Talks. Explaining How Money Really Works, Princeton UP, Princeton-Oxford.
Baroncelli, F. (2006). Viaggio al termine degli Stati Uniti. Donzelli, Roma.
Belkin, L. (2003). The Opt-OutRevolution, New York Times Magazine, 26.10.2003 https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/the-opt-out-revolution.html
Bianca, M. (2021). Il best interest of the child nel dialogo tra le Corti. M. Bianca (ed.), The best interest of the child, Sapienza Università Editrice, Roma, 669-693.
Brown, W. (2019). In the Ruins of Neoliberalism. The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West, Columbia UP, New York.
Cruikshank, B. (1996). Revolutions within: self-government and self-esteem. Barry, A., Osborne, Th., Rose, N. (eds), Foucault and political reason. Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government, University Chicago Press, London, 231- 251.
Filippini, N.M. (2017). Generare, partorire, nascere. Una storia dall’antichità alla provetta, Viella, Roma.
Fisher, L.W. (2019). Contracting Around the Constitution: an Anticommodificationist Perspective on Unconstitutional Conditions, Journal Of Constitutional Law. 21 (5) 1167-1218.
Foucault, M. (2004). El nacimiento de la clínica. Una arqueología de la mirada médica. Siglo XXI editores, Ar-Mx, (1966, 2003, reimpresión, Buenos Aires).
Galletti, M., Vida, S. (2018). Libertà vigilata: una critica del paternalismo libertario, IF Press, Firenze.
Green R. (1984). Birthing alternatives: a matter of choice and turf. Medical world news, 25(10), 42–58.
Kenny, C. (1929). Wife-Selling in England, Law Quarterly Revies, 45, 494-497.
Martin, E. (2001). The woman in the body. A cultural analysis of the reproduction. Beacon Press, Boston, (1987).
Mohr, J.C. (1978). Abortion in America. The Origins and Evolution of National Policy/ 1800-1900. Oxford UP, Oxford-New York.
Morace Pinelli, A. (2022). Le persistenti ragioni del divieto di maternità surrogata e il problema della tutela di colui che nasce dalla pratica illecita. In attesa della pronuncia delle Sezioni Unite, Giustizia Insieme, 3.11.2022, https://www.giustiziainsieme.it/it/news/129-main/minori-e-famiglia/2518-le-persistenti-ragioni-del-divieto-di-maternita-surrogata-e-il-problema-della-tutela-di-colui-che-nasce-dalla-pratica-illecita-in-attesa-della-pronuncia-delle-sezioni-unite
Morin, E. (2004). La epistemología de la complejidad. Gazeta de Antropología, 20 (22), 1-13.
Piontelli, A. (2020). Il cultro del feto. Come è cambiata l’immagine della maternità. Raffaello Cortina, Milano.
Radin, M.J. (1987). Market-Inalienability, Harvard Law Review 100, 1849-1937.
Rawls, J. (1987). The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7, (1).
Rottenberg, C. (2018). The rise of neoliberal feminism, Oxford UP, N.Y.
Stamile, N. (2022), Direito e Gênero: desafios contemporâneos, Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, 18 (3), e4750, 1-16.
Treichler, P.A. (1990). Feminism, Medicine, and the Meaning of Childbirth. Jacoubs, M., Fox Keller E., Shuttleworth, S., Body politics. Routledge, N.Y.-London, 113-138.
Viggiani, G. (2020). Il letto di Procuste. Appunti per una grammatica della discriminazione. GenIUS, 2, 1-12.
Informes:
BIANCA C.M., Audizione alla Commissione Giustizia della Camera dei Deputati del 23 maggio 2016, nel corso dell’indagine conoscitiva diretta a verificare lo stato di attuazione delle disposizioni legislative in materia di adozioni ed affido (http://documenti.camera.it/leg17/resoconti/commissioni/stenografici/html/02/indag/c02_adozioni/2016/05/23/indice_stenografico.0004.html#stenograficoCommissione.tit00020.int00300
Informe del Comité de bioética de España sobre los aspectos éticos y jurídicos de la maternidad subrogada
Mapa interactivo de la situación después 60 días de la decisión Dobbs https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/
Decisiones:
Corte Cost 9 marzo 2021, n. 33. https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?param_ecli=ECLI:IT:COST:2021:33
Corte cost., 20 ottobre 2020, n. 230. https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2020&numero=230
Corte Cost. 221/2019 https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2019&numero=221
Cassazione Civile, Sez. Un., 12193/2019 https://giuridica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Oscurate20190508_snciv@sU0@a2019@n12193@tS@oY.clean_.pdf
Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf