A series of vague and imprecise expressions made headway following a precise strategy during the Cairo and Beijing international conferences. The basis of this was a skewed interpretation of the 1948 International Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations grounded in a different vision of man than the one which inspired this fundamental historical text. One of the most important among these expressions is “sexual and reproductive rights” which is closely tied to an individualistic and statist conception of man and of society.

The pretension is to change the interpretation of Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights. Today the strategy linked to “sexual and reproductive rights” is to pass from a vague and diffuse concept (which was very useful in the international forums to those who share a certain conception of man), to a precise definition that permits its introduction in the various legal systems. Therefore, it is better to describe its “demands”, based on an anthropology that sees sexuality as disassociated from procreation, than to give it a definition. “Sexual rights” are often used to defend the “right” to homosexuality. The use of the expression “reproductive rights” is also related to a presumed “right” to contraception, sterilization, abortion and the modern techniques of artificial reproduction. (Gender; Sexual Identity and Difference; An Ideology of Gender: Dangers and Scope; Motherhood and Feminism; Safe Motherhood; New Definitions of Gender; Responsible Parenthood; Patriarchy and Matriarchy; Reproductive Health; Safe Sex; Equal Rights for Men and Women)

Definition

The term reproductive rights (RR) is frequently used by those who ideologically defend these rights. But since the term lacks a proper definition regarding its scope and content, its supporters consider that a precise definition is necessary to achieve a more efficient vindication of these rights and to guarantee the protection of the practices involved in them. Along with this ambiguity, the term is always connected to sexual rights, so in most cases we refer to them as “sexual and reproductive rights” (SRR). SRR are defined in terms of power and resources: the power to have access to the necessary information and make sound decisions about fertility, procreation and child care, gynecological health and sexual activity, as well as the resources to proceed in a safe and efficient manner [1]. Two important concepts go along with these rights: choice, understood as the essence of freedom, which verges on the ideological liberal-radical context, and women’s health and well-being, which relate to the feminist logic.

The list of rights that tend to be included in the category of SRR turns out to be more illustrative than a mere definition. The compilation of three 1996 texts The Declaration of Sexual and Reproductive Rights by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Mari Ladi Londoño’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights, and the Open Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Chile has made it possible to identify the following rights, which is also open to new inclusions:

• The right to exercise and enjoy sexual independence, according to one’s preferences as well as the right to due legal protection.

• Pleasant and recreational sex, independent of reproduction.

• Appropriate knowledge and information on sex and reproduction.

• Love, sensuality and eroticism in sexual relations.

• Sexual education should be appropriate, comprehensive, secular, scientific and sensitive to gender.

• Rejection of all external interventions in sexual activities.

• Freedom from fear, embarrassment, guilt and other imposed beliefs that inhibit the sexuality of a person and diminish his/her relationships.

• Selection of a partner to have sex without coercion or violence.

• Proper nutrition since childhood, for an adequate growth and balanced development of the body and of the potential for procreation in the future.

• Voluntary and free decision for motherhood without obligations.

• Complete information on the benefits, risks and effects related to contraceptives.

• Open and free contraceptives with information on contraceptive methods, follow up and responsibility of the users.

• Marriage and family and the right not to have one.

• Parenthood and the right to decide when to have children.

-Good quality of services for pre-natal, birth and post-birth care, guaranteed by the law.

• Equal participation of women and men in child rearing, building creatively on traditional gender roles.

• Effective legal protection against sexual violence.

• Adoption and the right to complete and accessible infertility treatments.

• Prevention of and treatment for infertility in the reproductive tract and the right to decide on interventions in any related matter.

From the above set of rights we can easily deduce that SRR are really a program to transform the morality of sexuality and life, a political agenda to change the sexual and family customs of people, especially of those in the South, focusing on the traditionally Catholic Latin-American countries. There is a deep cultural and political movement to change the meaning of the constitutions and the sex education programs in these countries. In fact, there are quite a few web pages dedicated to the spreading of reproductive rights in Latin America (Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia...).

Those who promote SRR say they have a long history starting with the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. These promoters interpret Article 2 of the Declaration as giving every person rights and freedoms regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or any other condition. It is, therefore, a matter of understanding that the Declaration of 1948, more than establishing a set of concrete rights, introduces the generic “right to have rights”, whose content will be the result of the democratic political activity of nations.

Furthermore, these supporters consider that subsequent United Nations conferences reinforced the idea that the right to make decisions about reproduction and the right of access to health services were fundamental human rights. Women’s rights–those approved by the United Nations–include “the thorough development and progress of women.” This means that both men and women must have equal access to health services, including those related to family planning, and the right to decide the number of children to have as well as the spacing of children. They consider that all this illustrates clearly the need for access to information, education and the necessary resources in order to exercise these rights.

In this line of reasoning, SRR promoters deem that the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo (1994) recognized some SRR as basic human rights. Thus, paragraph 7.3 of the final declaration states that “these rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human rights documents.” The Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing (1995) is seen as confirming the consensus on the need to eradicate all forms of violence and discrimination against women and to guarantee the right to decide freely and responsibly about sexual and reproductive matters. The plan of action of this Conference reads similarly to that of the Cairo Conference: “In the exercise of this right, they should take into account the needs of their living and future children and their responsibilities towards the community. The promotion of the responsible exercise of these rights for all people should be the fundamental basis for government- and community-supported policies and programmes in the area of reproductive health, including family planning.”

Despite these interpretations, no international text on human rights mentions reproductive rights explicitly. National and international juridical mechanisms merely recognize those functions related to human procreation, family and life. However, those who promote SRR do not unanimously recognize these functions as SRR. In order to fill the gap the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has prepared a charter of so-called “sexual and reproductive rights” and intends to apply the conclusive documents of the UN Conferences of Cairo (1994) and Beijing (1995) mentioned above [2].

This same document contains a list of twelve rights, interpreted, developed and established by the corresponding texts of the documents of Cairo and Beijing. Even if IPPF presents its interpretation of human rights and reproductive rights as the United Nations would, it actually responds to a very concrete political vision, whose general outline will be shown later in this document. For the moment we will show some of its significant elements.

Only those who are born have the right to life. The mother’s life must not be placed at risk by pregnancy and pregnancies that are too early, too late, too close or too many are considered to constitute a risk. Infanticide is condemned, but prenatal sex selection is passed over in silence. Freedom includes the right to enjoy and control one’s sexuality, with due respect for the rights of others, the right to be free from sexual and reproductive health related medical intervention without informed consent, and the rejection of genital mutilation, rape and sexual harassment.

Particularly significant is Article 2.5, which deals with antireligious bias typical of the IPPF project: “All persons have the right to be free from externally imposed fear, shame, guilt, beliefs based on myths and other psychological factors inhibiting their sexual response or impairing their sexual relations.” It is not out of place to see here a certain contempt towards religious freedom regarding sexuality, family and life. Next, the article mentions the right to not continue a pregnancy, to be sterilized or to have an abortion unless consented to.

The right to equality includes non-discrimination at work because of pregnancy, motherhood or sexual preference, but the latter was not accepted in the Beijing document for lack of consensus. It is established that women must have access to family planning centers without needing the consent of anyone else.

Included in the right to privacy is the right to absolute freedom regarding sexual reproduction, which comprises everything concerning so-called “safe abortion”. Thus, confidentiality for young people is protected in order to avoid parents’ involvement in all that relates to information on sexuality, access to contraceptives and abortion.

The right to freedom of thought and speech regarding sexual and reproductive life acts as a shield against the restrictions caused by ideas, awareness or religion if these prevent access to education and information on sexuality. In a contradiction, this right also restricts healthcare personnel’s objection to contraception and abortion in two ways: The professional is entitled to object only if the patient can be transferred to healthcare professionals willing to provide the service immediately and he is obliged to provide the service in cases of emergency.

The right to information on sexual matters means that the information will be presented in an objective, critical and pluralistic way including the benefits, risks and effectiveness of methods of fertility regulation and the prevention of unplanned pregnancy.

The right to family planning and the right to the benefits derived from scientific progress would include access to infertility treatment, to contraception, to abortion, and to methods of assisted reproduction. Considering abortion as a right is in contradiction with the Beijing and Cairo documents.

The right to health protection includes the following aspects: methods to regulate fertility, treatment for infertility and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS, and respect for confidentiality.

IPPF, whose head office is in London, was created in 1952 and has affiliate organizations–Family Planning Associations (FPA’s)–in one hundred and forty countries. IPPF is the most powerful and influential non-governmental organization that promotes population control. Its budget is over a hundred million dollars, and its sources of income are mainly states, principally the United Kingdom and private institutions such as The Ford, Rockefeller, Hewlett and MacArthur Foundations in the USA. Its actions follow a “radical” or “absolute” liberal ideology, and with this charter IPPF seeks to have an instrument for the promotion of some liberties, but not as mere negative liberties–ones where the State does not intervene–but as positive rights and demands directed to the State by people who follow the logic of “clients”, not of “patients”.

Those who promote these rights have three methods of social and legal action with the end of including them in government ordinances as well as in the social life of nations.

The Political Discourse on Rights

Reproductive rights are justified from a liberal individualistic logic, whose ideological connection is spreading what is known as “political liberalism”. Taking John Rawls as a representative figure of this ideology, we can say that the economic legitimization of the market is being extended to the political and social worlds; centering all values on the desire for freedom of the individual and on the commitment of public institutions to guarantee the effectiveness and equality of this freedom. Human rights interpreted in individualistic terms justify the internal policy of states as well as their presence in the international sphere. Conceptualizing rights in these terms is considered a politically correct demand on democracies considered to be ‘decent’. From this point of view, states are obliged to provide reproductive health services as a way to protect human lives regardless of sex; a view that guards the right of individuals to self determine their sexual and reproductive options based on the right to establish their own families, to be free from any kind of interference in their decisions to reproduce, and to be free from all types of violence and coercion that may affect the sexual and reproductive lives of women.

The Social Discourse on the Equality of Rights.

In poor or marginalized zones; the discourse about SRR is presented as a commitment for the marginalized woman and her freedom. Reproductive Rights and Health of Women of Color by the NARAL Foundation in its Reproductive Freedom & Choice project is a representative example of this kind of action. The ethical goal is to have the woman of color enjoy her right to choose, and to do so it is necessary to pinpoint the discrimination, past and present, which is focused on the difficulties in having safe and legal abortions. These difficulties are the result of racial and socio-economic discrimination, and the only way to overcome them is by disbursing public funds to give low income women the possibility of having abortions and not being forced to have undesired children. This is why the work of NARAL proposes ideas in three areas to improve the reproductive health of the woman of color: research, training for reproductive health promoters, and greater access to complete reproductive health services, including family planning programs and medical services for abortion. This analytical framework of the situation of the woman of color is identical to the one done on other indigenous or impoverished groups in Latin America. The objective is to identify the social support provided to women with their role as women, not only as mothers together with just and necessary measures to improve the sanitary and social conditions of women, there is an obsessive tendency to consider recourse to abortion as the key to liberating women.

The Legal Discourse about Reproductive Rights

The SRR discourse enters formal and stable democracies through interpretations of constitutions. Although not recognized as rights in international documents, the practice of artificial insemination, in vitro fecundation, embryo transfer, the possibility of cloning, and in general, everything that is known as “assisted reproduction techniques” force discussion on the existence of a right to procreate. Proponents try to base this right on human freedom, on the dignity of the person, on his/her inherent rights and the free development of his/her personality, on the personal and familial right to privacy, on the right to marry, and on the right to form a family and to protect it. The right to procreate is not usually taken as an absolute right, but one whose precise boundaries must be established. But since this right is characterized a moral freedom, it is affected by criteria that favor freedom, that is to say, a person can do everything the law allows him/her to do and everything that the law does not explicitly prohibit. Thus, a sort of “union” forms, supported by a constitutional justification between the individual and the public authority, through which a person expresses his/her desire to have a child, and the public authority is obliged, as much as possible, to provide the necessary medical resources to facilitate this wish. Therefore, it is important that limitations in the use of these resources must be justified so as not to be regarded as discriminatory, stressing the fact that no one should be excluded because of her/his sexual orientation. As might be expected, conscientious objection by health workers is not viewed with approval, and tends to be interpreted in a reductive manner. As in the case of social penetration, the key is abortion as a right. The key to legal penetration of SRR in constitutional states is in depriving the human embryo of its personhood. As a matter of fact, the methods of assisted reproductive depend on the creation of extra embryos, which opens the debate on what to do with the frozen gametes and embryos stored for a long time. Another result is forcing decisions on so-called “embryonic reduction”, which is nothing less than selective abortion in the case of multiple pregnancies.

Added to this, jurists see new problems appearing, the most serious of which is the dissolution of the social functioning of the family surname and the presumptions of filiation. Anonymous donors open the possibility that their biological stepsiblings will be unknown to each other and could even get married. This eliminates the content of some aspects of the ancestral taboo against incest.

Undoubtedly, there is a moral premise behind these political, legal and social proposals that must be dealt with because they affect the relationship between the human being with his/her sexuality, and the condition of women. Certainly, we have to appreciate and support the advances in medicine that make motherhood and the life of the newborn much safer as an undoubted human good. We also must commit to fighting to eradicate sexual violence and we must see sexism as a serious social dysfunction that must be fought, as well as seeing that women cease to experience the most severe social exclusion if we want to achieve the construction of an authentically human common good. From a political, social and legal point of view, there are many things that need to be reflected upon and corrected regarding the lived experiences of sexuality and family among peoples. The emphases that surround the defense of SRR, however, are not adequate.

Confronting the Logic of Splitting up with the Logic of the “Nuptial Mystery”

For SRR supporters, the radical separation between sexuality, procreation and the connection between men and women is completely positive. They say that human freedom is strengthened if the ultimate goal of sexuality is pleasure, if procreation is a function of the health care system, and if the only bonds between men and women are those that result from temporary and modifiable agreements. The religious thought that supports the opposite view encounters stiff resistance for it is thought to place guilt on the experience of pleasure, to reduce the freedom to procreate, and to inhibit the real desires of persons. Such a position forgets that “marriage, more than a question, is an answer,” and that the nuptial mystery is one of the most important nuclei of personal life. Those who live a free and responsible sexuality open to procreation reach a state of plenitude that those who engage in furtive, fearful, and occasional encounters will never enjoy. Procreation open to education helps to found the family as a community of values, growth, development, life and love. When sexuality is open to life and procreation and committed to education, it allows men and women to enjoy marriage: a human, legal and social asset. Marriage allows us to integrate what tends to be frustrating and lived separately, and to enjoy a happier way of life. Liberating women from the sufferings of an unjust experience of sexuality does not proceed from denying what is an authentic good for them, but by educating women intensely so that this good is produced.

Confronting the logic of statism, and the sovereignty of the family

SRR have the clear risk of emptying the family of its richness to make the individual more dependent on the machinery of the State. Far from fostering the personal freedom to create a family, they encourage State intervention, reducing the sphere of the personal world. The adventure of loving as a husband and as a wife, as parents and as children is persecuted and substituted by the apparent ease of destroying procreation and life. The sovereignty of the family demands recognition that these functions are proper to a human context, founded upon marriage, that develop in a responsible and socially efficient way the task of the most intimate and profound formation of the human personality. The “reproductive union” between the State and the individual can only bring about an ever greater latent dependency of the public on the collectivity. The best antidote for a radically individualistic interpretation of human rights is a defense of the rights of the family, which proposes a complete program of public action in favor of the vocation to love of men and women.

Confronting the Logic of Individualism, and the Logic of Communion

The rights of the family, as conceived by the Holy See in its 1983 Charter, try to correct the individualistic interpretation of human rights. A society of free and intelligent monads does not present the authentic face of humanity. Sharing one’s life with another is an exercise of mutual recognition through the sincere gift of oneself. Human rights are not spheres of compatible, abstract liberty, but understandings of the common good, of the personal responsibilities to build it. When the “right to procreate” is claimed, the rights of the other person, the future child, are being forgotten, and contradict the very logic of those rights. One does not have the right to a child, but the duty to educate him/her who was conceived in a manner respectful of his/her personal/human condition. One does not have the duty to respect abortion as an choice belonging to the individual freedom of women, or a need to respect the mistreatment of children in the future by the techniques of assisted reproduction. Rather, one has the duty to ask the public authorities to protect the rights of persons of the unborn and to correct any existing inconsistencies in a way compatible with this good. Rights are not liberties without duties. They perfectly articulate the duties to achieve human coexistence, the common good.

Confronting Secular Orthodoxy and Religious Freedom

SRR often seem to be based on a kind of agnostic vision of the world, whose content is wished to be imposed in public life as well as private life. Authors like Robert Paul George, with insight, warn that more than finding ourselves in a clash of civilizations (as Samuel Huntington wrote), we are faced with a clash of orthodoxies, a secular orthodoxy that seeks to exclude religion and revealed faith from the public sphere and an experience of Christianity, Judaism or Islam as vertebral axes of the lives of a great number of people in our world. The areas of sexuality and human life are affected by the experience of religion because these are far from trivial phenomena in people’s lives and decisively affect their life’s orientation. The only adequate context for this experience is the development of a true religious freedom that will permit faith to come to the aid of reason in order to protect the complete image of the human being. A religious freedom restricted to the private sphere, as a kind of sentimental fantasy irrelevant to the making of human decisions, is a deformation of such faith. The experience of guilt is not religiously adequate if it does not grasp the compassion and forgiveness of God, the Father who loves His children. Therefore, it is not necessary to abandon religious language to understand this.

Confronting the Manipulation of Sexuality and the Education of the Person

Finally SRR propose a perspective of the experience of sexuality that tends to be disembodied, calculating, and hallucinatory. Sexuality, life and family co-exist inside the logic of the body which is never as malleable as the mental or the imaginary, but have an imperative realism before the human being. Sexuality is a dimension of the person whose real possibilities of attaining happiness derive from his/her education or the lack thereof. Family life or the generous gift of one’s family life to God or to great human causes are the only scenarios for a happy human life. Only by the constant practice of sincere giving of oneself can one know true happiness, a gift that includes one’s sexuality and one’s heart. Away from this, there is a tendency for skepticism to a greater or lesser degree. Young people will not be able to educate themselves if they do not have this wisdom, or worse, if public campaigns are dedicated to building fantasy worlds of sexual happiness, so appealing to those who traffic in pornography or prostitution. Being a man or a woman implies educating oneself for a concrete and effective happiness: which proceeds from putting your own life at the service of a good that goes beyond oneself. The search for this will not mislead, and is able to generate the best in life of every individual.

In gathering the information on reproductive rights and the moral judgment of them, it is important to highlight the following points.

1. From a scientific point of view, the expression SRR must be eliminated because it is an ambiguous and vague category whose contents are implemented at random. Reducing the same provisions to SRR does not increase precision.

2. From a political point of view, it is part of a strategy of radical liberal groups to impose their ideas in matters of sexuality and human life, emptying the contents of the well being of the family.

3. From a legal point of view, it lacks any anthropological support as an expression of what is due in justice to others for the construction of the common good. Up until now, the expression SRR is not established in any positive norm, national or international, so it is incorporated under a wide interpretation of rights, that is, the right to have rights, or from the systematic interpretation of the constitutional principles, personal freedom, the free development of one’s personality, the right to health care services or the like.

4. Philosophically, it comes from an agnostic vision in which religious thought is distrusted, seen as synonymous with guilt and antagonistic to sexual pleasure. This leads to attacks on effective religious freedom for persons and families.

5. The 1983 Charter of the Rights of the Family of the Holy See is capable of integrating some of the claims of SRR that deal with human well–being, but also maintaining the protection of the well–being of the person, the family and the society. It can inspire adequate principles for interpreting the harmonization of the human rights implied in sexuality, family and human life. Other initiatives like the Declaration of Rights of the Embryo, and of the unborn fetus, could help correct the excesses provoked by invoking SRR.

6. The situation of the woman does not improve by invoking her SRR but with the protection of the good of marriage, of sexual education and of the conditions that will make motherhood possible, as well as the health of children during pregnancy, during and after birth. Only in this way can a woman have the freedom and dignity to be a woman without surrendering her right to be a mother.

7. Only by overcoming the nihilistic and mentalist visions of sexuality proposed by SRR can we obtain a true sexuality education and promote the true well-being of both human communion and the concrete happiness of people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CORREA, S. Y. PETCHESKY, R., “Reproductive and Sexual Rights. A Feminist Perspective”, in G. SEN- A. GERMAIN- L. CHEN (eds.), Population Policies Reconsidered: Health, Empowerment and Rights (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, (MA) 1994);  J. DOMÍNGUEZ, “Los derechos reprodutivos, según la IPPF. Una interpretación que quiere pasar por única”, in Aceprensa-Vida familiar; GOMEZ SANCHEZ Y., El derecho a la reproducción humana (Marcial Pons, Madrid, 1994); INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION (IPPF) (1996), Carta de IPPF de derechos sexuales y reproductivos, IPPF, London, 2000; NARAL FOUNDATION, Los derechos reproductivos y la salud de la mujer de color, Los Ángeles, California, USA, 2000; UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND (UNFPA) El derecho a elegir: derechos reproductivos y salud reproductiva, UNFPA, New York, 1997; VEGA A. M., “Los “derechos reproductivos” y sus interpretaciones: Una causa que se promueve en la ONU”, in Aceprensa-Vida familiar VIDAL MARTÍNEZ J. (ed.), Derechos reproductivas y técnicas de reproducción asistida, Comares, Granada, 1998;

On sexuality, life and family:

CRUZ CRUZ J. (ed.), Metafísica de la Familia (Eunsa, Pamplona, 1995); D’AGOSTINO, F., Elementos de una Filosofía de la Familia (Rialp, Madrid, 2002); SCOLA A., Hombre-Mujer. El Misterio Nupcial (Encuentro, Madrid 2001); VILADRICH, P.J., La agonía del matrimonio legal (Rialp, Madrid, 2000).

On human rights and family policy:

FINNIS J. M., Aquinas. Moral, Legal and Political Theory (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998); Natural law and natural rights (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981);

GEORGE, R. P., The Clash of Orthodoxies. Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis, ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware, 2001; PERIS CANCIO, José Alfredo, Diez temas sobre los derechos de la familia. La familia, garantía de la dignidad humana (Eunsa, Madrid, 2002).