Still trying to work out this “pre-emptive respect” thing

Here and here I write about how techniques of artificial conception, which supposedly violate the right of the child to "be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents" (Donum Vitae), raise a question that I have trouble comprehending:

Is it, in fact, possible to violate a right that does not yet exist, by an act that brings about the existence of those rights? Apparently so. Wrap your mind about that particular moral time warp.

We see darkly through time’s glass. Maybe, just maybe, this will make more sense in a perspective where time itself has no meaning.

Just a thought:  Does it seem to make more sense if instead of speaking negatively of "violating" rights (or potential rights), we speak positively of "respecting" rights (or potential rights)?

So that the question becomes:  Is it possible to respect a right that does not exist, by refraining from an act that might (if it were engaged in) bring about the existence of that right?

I might have to think about that a little more.  Can I, through some choice of actions, be said to act in a way that respects the rights of people who are not yet conceived, and who might in fact never be conceived?  Or is that nonsense?