| dc.description.abstract | This research aims to investigate how people argue about the decision by how to give birth and how they perceive damages and violations in this process. The choice for a route of birth delivery occurs in a context of insecurity and social pressures, in which the search for information and exposure of concerns, as well as the affective security, the guarantee of respected rights and the social esteem, play an important role for the realization of preferences. In this sense, the research is part of deliberation studies, with emphasis on the systemic approach and the study of everyday conversations, and struggles for recognition. The methodology points to the use of the adapted Discourse Quality Index / DQI, a list of arguments based on a study by Fiocruz and an analysis of the violations of the spheres of struggle for recognition and understanding of autonomy. In all, we elaborated 15 analytical categories to guide the investigation. We worked with Facebook, analyzing comments on childbirth news articles on the pages of the G1, Uol and Folha de São Paulo news portals, between June and December 2016. The definition of the period was because in June 2016 the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) in its resolution No. 2.144 / 2016 vetoed cesarean sections before the 39th week of pregnancy and reignited the deliberation on delivery in different arenas. We will observe the stories and justifications mobilized in the social network, based on news published in the media, associating two informal arenas of debate that make up the deliberative system and that can somehow be considered a source of data about society. To perform the analysis, we sought to relate the comments with the gender of the speakers and the preference expressed by a route of birth delivery. In our observation, we found that the comments made in the news selected for the corpus are mostly from women. Moreover, the content of justification, the function of life stories, and the type of violation recognized manifest in different ways in the defense of vaginal deliveries and elective cesarean sections. Thus, in this paper, we aim to discuss the complexity of the process of choosing and arguing for a route of birth delivery, underlining the intersections between the identification of damages and the constitution of preferences. | |
