1. The legal recognition of the existing Human leads to the question: "Is the embryo a Human?"

"All of us, in the Error, have all consistently approached the issue of the embryo by asking the wrong question"

‍Everyone knows that the judgment concerning the embryo has never been based on the Human it is destined to become, but rather on the question: "Is the embryo a person?".

‍The misunderstanding of HL is the cause of this. If the protection of the Human is limited to the existing Human today, then in the case of the embryo, there is a Human to be protected (and therefore deserving of respect) only if the embryo existing today is considered a Human. Therefore, in this case, in order to determine if there is a Human to be protected (and hence respected), the question becomes: "Is the embryo (which exists at the present moment) a Human?".

This current understanding of HL inevitably leads us to ask this question. And because this Understanding is shared by everyone, it is the question we all ask ourselves when ruling on the subject of the embryo.

The Human to be protected is limited to the Human that exists at the present moment
>
Case of the embryo: "Is the embryo that exists at the present moment considered a Human?"

The world is divided between those who support abortion rights and those who oppose them. The former group advocates for the option of embryo destruction, while the latter advocates for its preservation. These two factions are in vehement opposition, yet both sides justify their stance by responding to this question.
‍
However, this question arises from a misunderstanding of the Human to be protected. Therefore, it is incorrect to rely on this question to determine, in a particular situation, whether a Human should be protected.

What value can an answer hold if it is based on an erroneous premise? It holds no value whatsoever. Therefore, regardless of the answers provided at present, whether by proponents or opponents of abortion laws, they are rendered worthless.
‍
Today, all of us around the world are coming to the realization that we have always been mistaken when taking a stance on the issue of the embryo.

"Currently, we disagree on the answer, but what purpose does the answer serve if the question itself is flawed!"

2. The french law's answer to the question of whether the embryo is a Human.

a. The law does not see the embryo as a Human and offers the right to kill the embryo.

~   Do not consider the embryo as a Human.
​
« Is the embryo a Human? », what is the legal response to this question? Firstly, it should be noted that the french legislator has not provided a specific definition of the embryo. Given that the embryo is directly affected by certain laws of the Republic, such as those concerning abortion, this lack of a clear definition leaves room for debate.

However, the existing legal provisions offer insight into the legislator's stance on the matter. The legislator has aligned itself with the terminology proposed by the National Consultative Ethics Committee (an institute established to address bioethical issues), which, in its opinion dated May 24, 1984, referred to the embryo as a "potential human person". This terminology is quite telling. To describe an entity as having the potential to become something is, by implication, to acknowledge that it is not already that thing. "Is the embryo a Human?"—this is the fundamental question. And according to French law, the answer is: "No".
‍

~   Recognising the right to dispose of the embryo.
​​
The arrival of a child has a significant impact on a person's life and often necessitates many sacrifices. Therefore, humans naturally felt the desire to have the freedom to decide when they would enter this very special and highly responsible phase of becoming a mother or a father. They did not want it to be imposed upon them due to unforeseen circumstances or negligence. Unwanted pregnancies, which continued to rise with the sexual liberation of the 1970s, prompted society to demand the right to abortion, which the right to dispose of the embryo, a right to terminate it.

The legitimacy of such a right inevitably arose. Do individuals have the right to grant themselves this right? However, since it was only possible to harm the Human who exists, and since in the case of the embryo it was not recognised that a Human exists, it was considered that this right to terminate the embryo did not harm anyone. The harm to others, the element opposing the recognition of a 'right', not being characterised, the recognition of this 'right' was then justified. The laws legalising abortion (in France, the 1975 law on abortion) and the laws authorising embryo research (in France, the 2004, 2011 and 2013 bioethical laws) represent the primary legal provisions adopted concerning embryos in recent years.

Synthesis: Because the eyes of intelligence do not look at the Human to come and because the physical eyes do not see in the embryo a Human, society has concluded that it does not harm anyone by terminating the embryo and has consequently acknowledged its right to do so.


Ps: on the same theme, have a look at: Page New Understanding of the Legal Person. 3/. a/ Currently, the potential human person.

"As the society does not consider the Human to come and does not perceive the embryo as a person, terminating an embryo is not presently considered as causing harm to someone"

-

b. The current law grants the right to deprive the Human to come of his/her existence.

"By authorising the destruction of the embryo, the law granted every citizen the right to dispose of the Human that it failed to protect."

The Human must exist tomorrow, and the Human who must exist tomorrow is the Human who is destined to be. And, in order to be, this Human must be protected. This protection is provided through the set of rules that safeguard all Humans: the Law. Unfortunately, the lawmakers have always failed to grasp that this Human is to be protected. Every unprotected Human is inevitably exposed to the actions of other Humans. In theory, this lack of protection has always posed a threat to the Human to come, the threat that we might choose to deny her/his existence.
​
As this Human was not legally protected, his/her respect depended on conditions beyond its own legal recognition. It should be noted that by protecting who we are today, we indirectly protect the person we are going to become tomorrow. Some Humans can exist in the future because it was decided not to end the lives of those they are today. This is a good thing. The protection of the one who is compensates the lack of protection of the one who is not yet. However, there was this particular case - things would otherwise be too simple - where the Human to come is not currently considered a person (or at least does not appear to be one): the case of the embryo. The risk was that, because we didn't perceive a person in the embryo, we decided to recognise the right to destroy it and, consequently, the right to dispose of the Human to come.

However, there had to be a reason to justify the destruction of the embryo. The emotions, distress, and fears aroused by the arrival of an unwanted child were going to legitimise such a request. The reason that led Humanity to legalise the destruction of the embryo lay on the side of this child that it failed to consider. His/her presence in the future, the troubles connected with it, was the very cause that condemned him/her. As long as society remained ignorant of the consideration to be given to him/her, knowing only to fear him/her if he/she did not arrive at the right moment, it was destined to recognise this "right" to dispose of him/her. We just had to wait. All we had to do was to wait until the complaints, the demands for legalisation, became more and more pressing and the bill was put on the political agenda. On that day, answering "no" to the Erroneous Question, the Assembly had to acknowledge the right of everyone to dispose of the person whom no one considered.

As long as the Error remained, there was a risk, and the problem was that the question of the destruction of the embryo was discussed in the Assembly before this same Assembly succeeded in getting out of the Error. On that day, the day this law was passed, the Law was doubly at fault: in addition to failing to protect the Human to come, it gave every citizen the right to deprive him of being. That day, the tragic and inevitable end to which this misunderstanding would lead occurred.

- Scheme: Justice has ruled:

"The Assembly ruled:

It is not a Human > it is not condemnable;

it is not condemnable > it is a right!"