A Critique of Negotiable Reproductive Rights as a Population Control Measure

Authors

  • Georges-Philippe Gadoury-Sansfaçon Programmes de bioéthique, Département de Médecine sociale et préventive, École de santé publique, Université de Montréal, Montréal; Département des études médicales prédoctorales, Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9431-4160

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7202/1124216ar

Keywords:

negotiable reproductive rights, population control, social justice, eugenics, population policies, procreative beneficence

Language(s):

French

Abstract

This article offers an in-depth feminist critique of negotiable reproductive rights (NRRs), a measure proposed to control global population growth. The analysis demonstrates that NRRs would reinforce economic and social injustices while introducing a problematic eugenic dimension. The article highlights the need to develop population policies that respect equity, social justice and individual freedoms.

References

1. United Nations. World Population Prospects 2024. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2024.

2. Lam D. The next 2 billion: can the world support 10 billion people? Popul Dev Rev. 2024;51(1):63-102.

3. Zhang J. The evolution of China’s one-child policy and its effects on family outcomes. J Econ Perspect. 2017;31(1):141‑60.

4. Li H, Yi J, Zhang J. Estimating the effect of the one-child policy on the sex ratio imbalance in China: identification based on the difference-in-differences. Demography. 2011;48(4):1535‑57.

5. Zhang Y, Goza FW. Who will care for the elderly in China? J Aging Stud. 2006;20(2):151‑64.

6. Andersson H, Brandstedt E, Torpman O. Review article: The ethics of population policies. Crit Rev Int Soc Polit Philos. 2021;27(4):635-58.

7. Bhatia R, Sasser JS, Ojeda D, Hendrixson A, Nadimpally S, Foley, EE. A feminist exploration of ‘populationism’: engaging contemporary forms of population control. Gend Place Cult. 2020;27(3):333‑50.

8. Page EA. Justice between generations: investigating a sufficientarian approach. J Glob Ethics. 2007;3(1):3‑20.

9. Boulding K. The Meaning of the Twentieth Century: The Great Transition. London: Routledge; 1964.

10. de la Croix D, Gosseries A. Population policy through tradable procreation entitlements. Int Econ Rev. 2009;50(2):507‑42.

11. Bognar G. Overpopulation and procreative liberty. Ethics Policy Environ. 2019;22(3):319‑30.

12. Bandarage A. Women, Population and Global Crisis: A Political-Economic Analysis. London: Zed Books; 1997.

13. Hartmann B. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. Chicago: Haymarket Books; 2016.

14. Schultz S. Reproducing the nation: the new German population policy and the concept of demographization. Distinktion J Soc Theory. 2015;16(3):337‑61.

15. Vasquez Del Aguila E. Precarious Lives: forced sterilisation and the struggle for reproductive justice in Peru. Glob Public Health. 2022;17(1):100‑14.

16. Rowlands S, Regmi PR. The use of forced sterilisation as a key component of population policy: comparative case studies of China, India, Puerto Rico and Singapore. Indian J Public Adm. 2022;68(2):271‑84.

17. Conly S. One child: do we have a right to more? J Popul Sustain. 2016;1(1):27-34.

18. Savulescu J. Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics. 2001;15(5‑6):413‑26.

19. Stoller SE. Why we are not morally required to select the best children: a response to Savulescu. Bioethics. 2008;22(7):364‑9.

20. Bennett R. The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics. 2009;23(5):265‑73.

21. Winkler-Schor S, Brauer M. What happens when payments end? Fostering long-term behavior change with financial incentives. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024;20(5):925-40.

© Han Han Li

Downloads

Published

2026-03-16

How to Cite

[1]
Gadoury-Sansfaçon G-P. A Critique of Negotiable Reproductive Rights as a Population Control Measure. Can. J. Bioeth 2026;9:161-4. https://doi.org/10.7202/1124216ar.

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2026): Open Issue

Section

Critical commentaries

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Georges-Philippe Gadoury-Sansfaçon

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Canadian Journal of Bioethics applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License to all its publications. Authors therefore retain copyright of their publication, e.g., they can reuse their publication, link to it on their home page or institutional website, deposit a PDF in a public repository. However, the authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, distribute, and/or copy their publication, so long as the original authors and source are cited.