First Comes Marriage

Author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World (Spence), Jennifer Roback Morse exposes the muddled thinking of reproductive rights and why no one has a right to a child.

We must distinguish between “the right to have a child” in the sense of possession and the “right to have a child” in the sense of procreation.  There is one coherent way to imagine a right to procreate.  Two people of the opposite sex can come together to conceive a child, without permission from the state or anyone else.  People do it all the time.

To read all of First Comes Marriage, please click here.  Then, please join the discussion by clicking on the comments link below.

Comments

[William Calhoun]

I think the author is right on target. Children (when not being seen as inconvenient to the operation of a career) are now products, consumer goods that you want right up there with a Lexus and a Blackberry.

We have a huge medical industry dedicated to producing children for those with the resources and not the natural fertility (and the "byproducts" feed the stem cell industry). We toss away those children not wanted, through abortion or a tragically insufficient foster child system.

I have a job which allows me to peruse the tabloids and other celebrity centered media. Look how a celebrities parenthood is handled: the child is something of an accessory to fame and fortune, like a private jet. Behold the spread of the culture of capitalist-consumer-individualism: I can have whatever I want (even another human being), and shame on anyone who challenges my "rights".

[Matt Tapie]

For me, this was an eye-opening article. I did not know that the homosexual movement had made such inroads into the reproductive rights arena. I agree that children must not be thought of as consumer goods.

I also agree that marriage is the natural and God-designed place for children. However, I don't know that it is proper to even speak of the married persons as having "rights" to procreate. The langauge of "rights talk" is a symptom of consumerism and individualism. I understand that the courts may use this langauge but Christians must realize that we hold no rights before God--including the right to procreate. Married people ought to enjoy the legal protection to naturally reproduce but I do not believe we should trumpet it as a right. We should be careful to point out God's sovereignty and kindness in bestowing the gift of a child to two parents--a gift that only he has the right to create.

[J. Radley]

Matt Tapie makes an excellent point. His statement that "Christians must realize that we hold no rights before God" is particularly apropos as we begin Lent, and deserves some focus in our meditation.

[firinnteine]

As Christians, our rights are precisely what we don't want -- what we deserve, what we have a solid claim to, is eternal death.

"But the free gift of God..."

[Kip Watson]

First of all, reproductive rights are a good old fashioned 'negative' right. It's not that I and my wife have a right to reproduce, it's that you (yes, I'm talking to you, you know who you are) have no right to try and stop us.

Secondly, here in Victoria, Australia (aka 'the clever country'), IVF treatment (developed here by the way) is indeed only available to married couples. The overwhelming majority agree with that law and it works very well, thanks.

Look and learn.