"Do you want to protect this girl's presence tomorrow? If so, who do you truly want to protect?"
Consensus omnium (Proved by universal consent) :
Understanding that the Human yet to come has a Right to be/to exist rests on two questions, the answers to which are self-evident.
The first question appeals to each one’s sensitivity (A), the second is nothing but a simple logical deduction (B):
I Want her to be here tomorrow > I recognise her Right to be here tomorrow
Case of the girl:
- There is a girl in front of us today, and because she is alive and healthy, we can expect her to be here tomorrow, living a moment of her life.
- This is a fact.
Case of the girl:
- It's this presence tomorrow that I want to ask you about:
Do you want this little girl to be here tomorrow?
Or, would you accept depriving her of being there tomorrow and living the next moment of her life?
Case of the girl:
- Of course I want her to be here tomorrow!
She has to be here tomorrow!
No one could ever deprive her of being there tomorrow and live the moment of life that still lies ahead for her!
Case of the girl:
- For this purpose, you propose to protect her presence tomorrow?
- I do.
- Someone is legally protected on the basis of a Right. In the name of what Right would you ensure that this girl will be here tomorrow — and live the next moment of her life?
- Quite simply: in the name of her Right to be here tomorrow and to live the next moment of her life.
- So you acknowledge that this little girl has a Right to be here tomorrow and to live the next moment of her life.
- I do!
I recognise her Right to be here tomorrow > I recognise the Right to be here tomorrow of the one she is destined to be.
Case of the girl:
- I have a second question for you.
- Please.
- Who, more specifically, is the beneficiary of this Right? Is this Right to be here tomorrow recognised for the one this girl is today or for the one she is destined to become tomorrow?
- Again, the answer is self-evident: The one this little girl is destined to become tomorrow is the one who is granted this Right to be here tomorrow.
- You have just admitted the legal recognition of the Human to come.
- That's true! I cannot dispute this deduction!
I Want her to be here tomorrow > I recognise the Right to be here tomorrow of the one she is destined to be.
Case of the girl:
Case of the girl:
- Currently, only the Human who exists is legally recognised. Do you therefore acknowledge that this legal provision is flawed?
- Certainly! Having nothing to challenge in your intellectual reasoning, which is based on two self-evident questions, I cannot deny that the law has always been misguided, having had too narrow a conception of the Human it ought to protect.
- So, what is the correct understanding of Human who should be protected?
- The law should not protect only the Human we are today and who currently exists, but also the one we are destined to become and who does not yet exist.
"We all Want others to continue to exist tomorrow; thus, no one can deny that a Human is still denied legal recognition today!"
« TODAY, I WANT TO PROTECT (moment of legal recognition)...
...HER PRESENCE TOMORROW ! (suject of legal recognition) »
"I want today to protect your presence in the future. But, when I speak of your presence in the future, I am not referring to the You of the present moment.
The You I want today to protect is not only the You of today."
