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"

‍Currently, we only consider the Human who exists, who is before us today.

Only this Human, according to us, is to be respected. Therefore, in the case of the embryo, to determine if there is a Human that must be respected, this Error leads us to focus solely on the embryo that exists, that is before us today, and to ask ourselves the question: is this embryo a Human?

This current understanding of Human to be respected inevitably leads us to 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 the right to abortion and those who oppose it. The former are in favor of the destruction of the embryo, while the latter argue for its preservation. These two camps often clash vehemently, but on both sides, it is by answering this question that they justify their position.
‍
However, this question stems from a misunderstanding of the Human who is to be protected. Consequently, it is wrong to pose this question to determine whether, in a specific instance, a Human is to be protected.

What value can have a response given on the basis of an erroneous element have? None. Therefore, any answers currently given, whether by proponents or opponents of abortion laws, are worthless.
‍
Today, it is each of us, the whole world, who discovers that we have never fully grasped how to answer the question of the embryo.

"We currently disagree about 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 answer to this question? First, note that the french legislator has deliberately avoided answering this question. Considering that several laws directly concern the embryo, this omission is regrettable.

However, laws and court decisions related to the embryo strongly suggest that french law has followed the position of the National Consultative Ethics Committee which, in its opinion dated May 24, 1984, described the embryo as a 'potential human person'. This terminology is highly significant. To describe an entity as having the potential to be something implies that this entity is not currently that thing. The question is: ‘Is the embryo a person?’ and french law answers: "No".
‍

~   Recognising the right to dispose of the embryo.
​​
The arrival of a child significantly impacts a person's life, often requiring numerous sacrifices. Consequently, individuals naturally desired the freedom to decide when to have a child. They did not want to be compelled into parenthood due to unforeseen circumstances or negligence. The increase in unwanted pregnancies during the sexual liberation of the 1970s led society to demand the right to abortion, the right to terminate the embryo.

The question of the legitimacy of such a right inevitably arose. Do individuals have the right to grant themselves this right? Since harm could only be inflicted upon an existing Human, and since the embryo was not recognised as such, it was argued that the right to terminate the embryo harmed no one. Harm to others—the factor opposing the recognition of a right—could not be established, therefore the recognition of this 'right' was justified. Laws legalising abortion and those authorizing embryo research (such as the French bioethical laws of 2004, 2011, and 2013) represent the primary legal provisions concerning embryos adopted in recent years.

Synthesis: Giving no consideration to the Human the embryo is destined to become, and not recognising the embryo as Human, the law assumes that abortion harms no one. Consequently, this act—abortion—has been legally authorised.


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

- Scheme: To focus solely on the embryo:

Our current view on the embryo:

No consideration is given to the Human the embryo is destined to become in the future, and at the present moment, it is seen only as a cluster of cells, not as someone.
>
In the case of an embryo, it is therefore not currently considered that a Human is to be respected or protected.

-

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 offered to every citizen the right to dispose of the Human it failed to protect"

Everyone must be here tomorrow, but more specifically, the person who must be here tomorrow is the person who is yet to come. To ensure the existence of this Human tomorrow, this Human needs to be protected—protected by the system designed to safeguard Humans: the law. The problem is that this protection to be granted to this Human has always remained ignored by the human community. This Human has then never been registered in the Law. However, any unprotected Human is inevitably exposed to the attacks of other Humans. Theoretically, this gap, this lack of protection therefore represented, from the beginning, a risk for the future Human, the risk that it would be decided to deprive him/her of being.
‍
In the absence of legal protection, the respect owed to this Human was thus contingent on factors external to his or her legal recognition. On this point, it should be noted that by protecting the person we are today, we indirectly protect the person we are destined 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 those who exist compensates the lack of protection for those who do not yet exist. However, there was this particular case - otherwise things would  be too simple - where the Human to come is not, at the present, considered a person (or at least does not appear to be one): the case of the embryo. The risk was that, by not seeing a person in the embryo, we would decide to grant ourselves the right to destroy it, therefore the right to dispose of the person it is destined to become.

However, there had to be a reason to justify the destruction of the embryo. The emotions, distress, and fears triggered by the arrival of an unwanted child were going to legitimise such a request. The reason that was to lead Humanity to recognise this right to kill the embryo was rooted in this child it failed to consider. His future presence and the troubles associated with it were the cause that condemned him. As long as Humanity remained ignorant of the Right of this future child, it was predisposed to arrogate to itself the right to decide on his existence. We simply had to wait until the demands for legalisation became increasingly urgent and for the bill to be placed on the political agenda. That day, the deputies, answering negatively to the Erroneous question, the abortion law was to be passed, and the violation of the first of the Rights to be recognised for the Human, that of being, of existing, was to be acknowledged for every citizen.
‍
As long as the Error remained, there was a risk, and the problem is that the question of abortion was discussed in the assembly before Humanity succeeded in extricating itself from this Error. That day, the day this law was adopted, the law was doubly at fault: it not only failed to recognise a Human Right but also conferred the power to violate this Human Right. 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!"