Miller Alice M, Gruskin Sofia, Cottingham Jane, Kismödi Eszter
Co-Director, Global Health Justice Partnership of the Yale Law School and the School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Professor of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Professor of Law and Preventive Medicine, Gould School of Law; Director, Program on Global Health and Human Rights, Institute for Global Health, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Reprod Health Matters. 2015 Nov;23(46):7-15. doi: 10.1016/j.rhm.2015.11.006. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
Although past resistance to sexual rights in global debates has often been grounded in claims to culture, nation and religion, opposition voices are now using, rather than rejecting, the frame of international human rights. This Commentary argues that, despite opponents' attempts to defeat sexual rights with other rights claims, a careful understanding of the principles of international human rights and its legal development exposes how the use of rights to oppose sexual rights should, and will ultimately, fail. The Commentary briefly takes up three kinds of "rights" claims made by opponents of sexual rights: limiting rights to protect rights, textual basis, and universality, and explores the rationales and impact of their application to countering sexual rights. Because sexuality and reproduction intersect as well as diverge in the opposition they face, this struggle matters intensely and plays out across advocacy, programmatic and policy worlds. Underpinning this Commentary is the understanding that opposition to sexual and reproductive health rights uses common arguments about rights principles that must be understood in order to be countered.
尽管在全球辩论中，过去对性权利的抵制往往基于文化、国家和宗教主张，但现在反对声音正在利用而非拒绝国际人权框架。本评论认为，尽管反对者试图用其他权利主张来击败性权利，但对国际人权原则及其法律发展的仔细理解揭示了利用权利来反对性权利为何应该且最终将会失败。评论简要讨论了性权利反对者提出的三种“权利”主张：为保护权利而限制权利、文本依据和普遍性，并探讨了它们应用于反对性权利的理由和影响。由于性与生殖在面临的反对中既相互交织又有所不同，这场斗争至关重要，并在倡导、项目和政策领域展开。本评论的基础是这样一种认识，即对性与生殖健康权利的反对使用了关于权利原则的常见论点，必须理解这些论点才能予以反驳。
