In its elementary and immediate understanding, the recently coined and called “Reproductive Right” should mean just that, viz., the right to reproduce which is clearly the right of husbands and wives to bring forth children into the world.
In other words, it is the inherent right of married couples to be the joint transmitters of human life in terms of their children born of their conjugal union. Their complementary physiological constitution and mutual option of marriage, precisely gives origin to the connatural right of reproducing their “other selves” in the persons of their offspring.
Thus it is that when couples have children, this is because they do not only have the conjugal reproductive right but also have precisely exercised the right. And the more they claim and act on this right in the proper time, the more children they usually have, and the more responsible parents they are gravely obliged to be.
It is wherefore rather strange and incongruous when “Reproductive Right” is taken to mean exactly the opposite, viz., the right not to reproduce, the right not to procreate. It is quite perplexing wherefore when “Reproductive Right” is the phrase faithfully invoked to mean instead the duty specifically of women categorically to refuse to have children.
Thus it is that the exact equivalent and correct translation of the nice and impressive sounding phrase “Reproductive Right” is clear and simple: birth control. Those who deny this correct and objective meaning of the phrase are not only lying to themselves but also defending the indefensible: It is vain and futile to say that the right to reproduce means the duty to be unreproductive.
Why is it that people say something when they mean exactly the contrary in the realm of reality? Why do they deliberately shun to say what they really mean even though such is objectively wrong and unacceptable in the sphere of ethics? How come reproduction is said to convey exactly its opposite?
15 April 2003