"Principle of equality among Humans: two identical Humans, two equal Rights"
Aequalitas (Principle of Equality among Humans) :
Having established the Right to be of the Human destined to be, the question then arises: what are the implications of this new Right?
This part is about parallelism: from one case to another, from one Human to another:
I recognise the Right to be here tomorrow of the one she is destined to be > I recognise the Right to be here tomorrow of the one the embryo is destined to be.
Case of the embryo:
- Now that we have identified that the Human to come has a Right to be/exist, we must question the implications of this new legal data.
- Let’s discuss that further.
- Speaking of the Human who is to come, there is a subject we cannot fail to consider. Do you see which topic I am referring to?
- You are referring to the issue of the embryo.
- Why?
- The embryo is destined to become a Human. The embryo corresponds to a Human to come.
Case of the embryo:
- How then does the newly identified rule apply to this case?
- Isn't it obvious? Very simply, if the one this little girl is destined to become has the Right to be here tomorrow, then the one the embryo is destined to become tomorrow must have the same Right.
To recognise the Human yet to exist in the case of this little girl is to recognise the Human yet to exist in the case of an embryo.
- So, when we stand before an embryo, does a Right already exist that must be respected?
- What can I say!
She is a Human regardless of her current state > She has the Right to be regardless of her current state.
Case of the embryo:
- But I can see that you're thinking about something. What is it?
- Well... Couldn’t we say that the One this little girl is destined to become has an inherent Right to be, because she is already someone today — whereas the other does not, precisely because she is still today only an embryo?
- The Rights of a person are inherent to human nature. Am I right?
- Surely!
- And, is the young woman that an embryo is destined to become any less human than the young woman this little girl is destined to become, because she is only an embryo today?
- Surely not!
- So, why then should this one be considered and protected, and not the other? Why should one be granted a Right and not the other? Does it make sense?
- Indeed. It does not. You have just invalidated the hypothesis that seeks to make the Right of the Human to come depend on what he or she is today.
« TODAY, I WANT TO PROTECT (moment of legal recognition)...
...HER PRESENCE TOMORROW ! (subject of legal recognition) »
=
(means)
« TODAY, I WANT TO PROTECT (moment of legal recognition)...
...HER PRESENCE TOMORROW ! (subject of legal recognition) »
Principle of equality among Humans:
Two Humans of the same nature: one shared Will, two equal Rights.
"The 'you' I Wish today to protect is not limited to the person you are today, but also extends to the person you are destined to be in the future.
Therefore, I must not consider the embryo in terms of what it is today, but rather with a view that extends toward its future.
And, I cannot deny that, in the future, the embryo is the same person as the 'you' I Wish to protect".
It has just been proven that the Human the embryo is destined to become possesses a Right to be/to exist. Such a legal datum radically alters the manner in which each individual adjudicates on the matter of the embryo. Indeed, at present, no one considers the person the embryo is destined to become (IIIA). No one has yet understood that the embryo must be considered only in light of the person it is destined to become (IIIB).
