If I were really playful, I could argue that fertility is an instinct, just like the hunter-killer instinct! (I don't subscribe to the theory that early man was a vegetarian. Talk about revisionist anthropology.) So - if fertility is a right, isn't the natural expression of our hunter-killer instinct (say, maybe, through the bearing and use of, like, deadly weapons) (and say, maybe, through the hunting of big game for sport) an obvious right?
But let's not get into that :-)
The one thing that makes me think, however, is - take the environmentalist perspective. Environmentalism hinges on the idea that protecting the bluegreen onionskin on our planet is Really Important, more so than ephemeral principles like the Bill of Rights or the Communist Manifesto. (Miss anybody?) So, from a hardcore environmentalist perspective (which I'm guessing draws your sympathy because you've expressed admiration for Greenpeace and the Sierra Club) the earth comes first.
A key priority of any sane long-term environmental agenda is to lighten man's tread on the scenery. This would be achieved through two interlocking objectives: 1) reducing the raw material demand per capita, including living space, and 2) keeping tabs on the number of capita.
So, I see a tension between environmentalism and the tenet that the right to bear children is inviolable. Do you see an optimal solution (keeping as a premise that people are, by and large, inherently selfish and greedy)? |
