Reproductive Rights Means the Right to Reproduce. Or Not to.

Over on parentdish.com, blogger Rachel Campos-Duffy (of Real World fame) headlines: "Feminists Silent on Call For Global One-Child Policy." She refers to an op-ed in the Canadian National Post, in which editor-at-large Diane Francis suggests that a one-child policy like China's would address the environmental devastation caused by overpopulation.

Hi, I'm a feminist. And I don't approve of instituting a one-child policy. I would have said so earlier, but I've been a bit behind on following what's going on in -- which newspaper was it again?

"When it comes to the freedom to procreate without government or societal reprobation," Campos-Duffy claims, "these supposedly 'pro-women' groups send a very clear message to women, and mothers in particular: In this battle, you are on your own." But feminists have spoken out on this issue before. Francis herself opposes the forced abortions or sterilizations that can occur under the Chinese system, advocating instead for financial disincentives.

Campus-Duffy (currently expecting her sixth child) has the right to reproduce without governmental interference, and I would fight for that right. Nonetheless, though Francis' policy suggestion is off-base,  she is at least correct regarding the environmental repercussions. The right to reproduce doesn't mean the right not to be aware of the impact the extra carbon footprints will have on climate change, even if that knowledge doesn't alter an individual's personal decision (which is nobody else's to make or attack).

While I never support infringements on reproductive rights, I can firmly oppose one-child policy while understanding that there are nuances to the issue -- I also don't support children dying of starvation, preventable illness, or complications from climate change. I haven't always agreed with the knee-jerk opposition to any discussion about overpopulation, as long as the conversation centers on the intersection of environmental needs and women's rights through decreasing the high number of unwanted pregnancies, rather than on population control, as Francis promotes.

Penalizing people for having more than one child is certainly not the way to go -- especially since, in many cases, it's the children who will end up punished by a financial hit. (Besides, having multiple kids is already a financial burden. Duh.) Increased access to contraception and abortion for those who want it is. If we already have an overpopulation problem, why force people who don't even desire to bring more children into the world to do so?

Changing the stigma surrounding adoption would also have benefits reaching beyond the environmental. For people who want a big family, I'm saddened by the way in which our culture prioritizes "biology" above the ability to love and care for a child in need you choose to make part of your home. It's unfortunate that, due to this, so many people automatically feel they have to have their "own" children.

Finally, as far as "social reprobation" goes, I think it's far more often directed toward women who don't want children. Why attack people for a personal and sustainable choice? As someone who finds my period even less potentially useful than my appendix, the shock and dismay gets old.

Pro-choice means just that: pro-choice. Pro being able to make the choice to give birth, adopt, or none of the above.

Photo courtesy of net_efekt's Flickr photostream.