II. The legal recognition of Human the embryo is destined to become.

Consensus omnium (Proved by universal consent): Principle of equality among Humans: two same Humans, two same Rights.‍

Having established the legal recognition of the Human to come, we must now raise the question of the implications of this new understanding.

This part is about parallelism, from one case to another, from one Human to another: ‍

The recognition of the Right to be here tomorrow of the Human the embryo is destined to become:

I recognise the Right to exist of the one she is destined to become > I recognise the Right to exist of the one the embryo is destined to become.

- Now that we have identified the legal recognition of the Human to come, we must question the implications of this new legal data.
‍
- Let’s discuss that further.
1 : Data presentation : the embryo of today...
...is tomorrow a Human.
- Speaking of the Human who is to come, there is a subject we cannot miss to consider: that of the embryo. The embryo is, in the future, a Human.

- Indeed. The embryo corresponds to a Human to come.
2 : Transposition of the identified Right to the specific case:
- How then does the newly identified rule apply to this case?

- Isn't it obvious! Very simply:

If this young woman - who is yet to come - has the Right to be here tomorrow (and live her coming moment of life), then this other young woman - also yet to come - must have the same Right.
‍
To legally recognise the Human who is destined to be means to legally recognise the Human that the embryo is destined to be.

- So, when we are standing in front of an embryo, there is already today a Right to respect: the Right of the Human that this embryo is destined to become?
‍
- What to say!‍
"If this Human yet to come has the Right to exist, then all Humans yet to come must be granted the same Right"

Unwilling to accept the idea of having to respect a Right in the case of an embryo, some might try to argue that the Human to come is not, in the case of the embryo, under the protection of a Right. To this end, they will propose the hypothesis that the Human to come deserves protection only if he or she is already someone today.

Here, we aim to respond to this hypothesis, which seeks to make the Right of the Human to come dependent on what he/she is today:‍

Aparté :
The legal recognition of the Human to come cannot depend on what he/she is today:

The legal recognition of someone cannot depend on anything external to his/her human nature.

- I see that you're thinking. What are you thinking about? About something to say? To answer?

- Well... the emergence of a Right to be respected in this case would not be without consequences. And, I wonder if it's not possible to present an argument?

- Which one?

- I don't know! Can't we think that this young woman, who is yet to come, should be protected because she is already someone today — while the other shouldn't, simply because she is still just an embryo?

- Can we justify treating two Humans differently?

- Absolutely not!

- And, is this young woman to come any less human than this other one simply because she is currently in the embryonic stage?
‍
- Definitely not! ‍ 

- So, why should one be denied this Right while the other is granted? Does it make sens?

- Not really.

-‍ Humans should be protected solely because of their humanity. The legal recognition of a Human is inherent to her/his human nature. Now, this young woman who is yet to come is a Human regardless of her current state as an embryo. Her current state does not affect her human nature, and as such, it should not determine her legal recognition.

- That's true. You're right. It is not an extraneous element to one's human nature that should determine the recognition of one's Rights; therefore, it is not what the Human to come may be at a given moment that should determine whether this Human has the Right to exist.
"The Human is to be protected simply because he is Human.

Regardless of what he/she is today, the Human to come is a Human!

Therefore, the Human to come is to be protected, regardless of what he/she is today!"

Conclusion /
‍From our Will for others to the legal acknowledgment of the Human that an embryo is destined to become tomorrow:

I Want her to be here tomorrow >
I recognise the Right of the one the embryo is destined to become to exist.

- Initially, I questioned your goodwill towards others. I asked you if you wished for this girl to exist tomorrow and you understood all the hidden meaning in the answer to this seemingly ordinary question?
‍
- Certainly! To mention the presence of someone tomorrow is to acknowledge the Human destined to become, and to acknowledge the Human destined to become is to acknowledge the Human that the embryo is destined to become. Hence, when you inquired whether I wanted this girl to exist tomorrow, you were indirectly addressing the legal recognition of the Human that an embryo is destined to become; and by answering "yes" to this question, I was already validating that recognition.

- So, what is your conclusion based on this brief exchange?

- Oh, that conclusion is quite straightforward! As we inherently will the presence of others in the future, and since this will for others cannot be denied, it follows that no one can deny the legal recognition of the Human that an embryo is destined to become!‍
"No one can deny the will to legally protect the presence of others in the future. Therefore, no one can deny the existence of a Right to be respected in the case of the embryo"

Assessment:

"The One I Want to protect today extends into the future.

Therefore, the embryo must be considered with a perspective that encompasses the future.

So then, I cannot deny that in the future, the embryo corresponds to the One I Want to protect today"‍

Follow us
YouTubeInstagramTwitter
© 2022 Copyright. Homme Droit