CYIL 2015

243

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND HUMAN DIGNITY

for all human beings”

and at the same time to the entirety of humanity in the sense

of metaphysical cosmology. Thus, human dignity is more a concept of philosophy

(and religion) but with strong legal implications,

as the concept of human dignity

is revived especially in the process of juridication (be it in the legislative or judiciary

sphere).

In the case of the definition of reproductive rights there was a possibility to

enumerate at least specific rights as being part of that concept (e.g. the right to decide

freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children, interdiction of forced

sterilization). However, the concept of human dignity is (at least in legal texts) very

vague. In the attempt to define human dignity there are only two possibilities: either

to expose a deep philosophical argumentation

of the concept of human dignity, or

to restraint oneself to the legal perspective and to present this concept without any

clear and accurate path.

In the clash of these two approaches, human dignity comes

out as a sort of “treasure hunt”, especially when it comes to the judiciary.

However, for the purposes of this article, there must be at least a delicate flavour

of the philosophical perception of human dignity. Without any specification of the

concept of human dignity, the process of the interconnection between reproductive

rights and human dignity would be totally impaired. Some would object that in

choosing just one perception of human dignity, we are eliminating others. And this

is perhaps the crucial point of the legal discourse on human dignity. It is difficult

to accept that in a multicultural society where every opinion or conviction has its

place of existence, there could be a “totalitarian” position of only “one” perception of

human dignity. However, in this regard the search for the truth is clear. As the human

being and humanity are a unique and at the same time universal conception, there

CHAPMAN, Audrey R. Human dignity, Bioethics and Human Rights, in Health Care, Bioethics and

Law, 3 Amsterdam Law Forum, (2011), p. 4.

One may argue, that every era has its own proper philosophy trends, from Ancient Socratic, Medieval

Christian, Voltairian, Kant-Hegelian to post-modern philosophy nowadays. Would it thus mean that

the concept of human dignity and its content depend on the particular approach of prevailing current

philosophical trend? If yes, even today’s conception of human dignity and human rights cannot claim

to be the universal and right/proper one.

E.g. Glensy presents different points of view on dignity, going through Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Kant,

Federalists, Schachter, Pope Benedict XVI and others. See: GLENSY, Rex D., The Right to Dignity.

Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 43.1 – Fall 2011, p. 65-142.

UN Charter, “the dignity and worth of the human person”; UDHR, “All human beings are born

free and equal in dignity and rights”. Charter of the Human Rights of the EU, “Human dignity is

inviolable. It must be respected and protected.” (Art. 1).

McCrudden says: “The meaning of dignity is therefore context-specific, varying significantly from

jurisdiction to jurisdiction and (often) over time within particular jurisdictions. Indeed, instead

of providing a basis for principled decision-making, dignity seems open to significant judicial

manipulation, increasing rather than decreasing judicial discretion. See McCRUDDEN, Christopher.

Human Dignity and Judical Interpretation of Human Right. European Journal of International Law,

Vol. 19 (2008), p. 655-724.