Abstract

Political and legal theories of animal rights tend to raise the issue of domesticated animals’ sexuality and reproduction as a matter of population management and therefore concentrate too narrowly on providing justification for fertility restrictions. In this article, I argue that the normative logic underpinning the historical evolution and conceptual development of the fundamental right to health in international law, in its paradigm shift from population control to health rights, is consistent with initiating a similar transition in the domesticated animal case. Without the relevant legal rights protections in place, individual interests in having control over, and making decisions about, their sexuality and reproduction get subordinated to the imperative of achieving sustainable population goals, resulting in the violation of bodily integrity and self-determination. What is missing from the present discussion of domesticated animals’ sexuality and reproduction is a rights-based discourse. I seek to address this gap in the literature by drawing on the existing human rights law norms to develop a conception of sexual and reproductive rights for domesticated animals as a shared yet differentiated fundamental right to health. I show that the realization of this right for domesticated animals is conditional upon a set of freedoms and entitlements, such as the freedom of choice, association, and mobility, as well as access to a range of health facilities, goods, and services. The aim is to introduce a new way of thinking about domesticated animals’ sexuality and reproduction as a rights and agency issue not just a population and fertility control dilemma.