(No longer being focused on the embryo, but on the Human that the embryo is going to be)
Lex Ratio profecta a rerum natura (Law is a prescription of Reason) :
It was only a group of cells, and it is still only a group of cells. However, I no longer base my right to dispose of it on what it is. I now base my judgment of my right to dispose of the embryo on the Human it will become tomorrow.
The rule identified in these pages is more than just a rule of law! It is a question of the consideration to be given to someone ; such a datum is a rule, a law, which is inscribed first and foremost in the heart of each person. The identified rule is a human rule before being a legal one.
In the following section, it will be possible to digress from strictly formatted legal writing and express more sensitive reactions that reflect the new consideration that must be given to the one who is to come and the new consideration of the embryo because of the one it is destined to be (1/). Today, the first and foremost Right that must be recognised for every individual is the Right to be/to exist, and this Right stands in opposition to the right to terminate the life of an embryo (2/):
"The reason why you refuse to kill this girl is the same reason why you must refuse to kill this embryo"
# Do not kill because of the Right to exist of the Human who is yet to come.
"Why am I yelling: 'Don't kill this little girl!'?
I'm shouting 'Don't kill her!' with all my heart because I truly value her presence in the future, because I want her to be here tomorrow. But who!... Who is the One i want to be here tomorrow? I exclaim 'Don't kill this little girl!', because I care about the presence tomorrow of... the One she is detined to become!
So, if I genuinely care about the person who hasn't arrived yet, I must also care just as much about this other person who hasn't arrived yet, And just as I shout 'Don't kill that little girl!', should I not also shout: 'Don't kill that embryo!'?"
- Girl's case:
"Don't kill her because...
...she has to be here tomorrow!"
- Embryo's case:
"Don't kill it because...
...she has to be here tomorrow!"
-
# «Would I "only" deprive him of being here tomorrow ?»
"My friend, who became pregnant accidentally, didn't want to keep the child. However, she was hesitant. She was afraid of doing something wrong. So, I told her that she could go through with it, that she was killing no one, that she was "only" depriving someone of being there tomorrow.
But if it wasn't an embryo but a person who had been killed, would we also say that someone was "only" deprived of being there tomorrow?"
"To kill it or not to kill it ? That was the question. And it should be understood that this question was not to be resolved by examining what the embryo is today, but by considering the Human it will become tomorrow.
Indeed, it is because of who he/she is tomorrow that one refuses to kill the other !"
"This right, which was only a right to destroy an embryo, becomes a right to dispose of a child"
# The right to abortion, a right to dispose of others.
"The Human to come was nothing, unimportant, he becomes everything, a Human to protect like any other Human.
Therefore, as this Human changes in value, so does the act that deprives him/her of being and as the act changes in value, so does the right to commit the act. If the Human in question is nothing, the act does not dispose of anything, and the right to commit the act can then be recognised. On the contrary, if the Human in question becomes everything, the act that did not dispose of anything becomes an act that disposes of someone, and the right to commit the act can then no longer be recognised. Everything is linked : the Human, the act affecting the Human and the right to commit the act affecting the Human ; but, if the element at the basis of the whole, the Human, changes its value, the whole thing is turned upside down.
Reflecting on this topic, the first question that had to be asked, the fundamental one, the one too often set aside, and that everyone has always failed to ask themselves, is therefore the following one : 'What value should be attributed to the one who is yet to come?'. And, it has just been understood today that this individual must be taken into consideration, that he is the one considered in everyone when we exclaim: 'Don't kill this person !'."
"The consideration given to this right depends on the value accorded to the Human whom this right offers to deprive of being"
The right to dispose of a Human can only exist if that Human is deemed to have no value.
The right to dispose of the forthcoming child can only exist if this child has no value. Before discussing this right, we must first talk about the child this right deprives of existence, and the question is: "Are we certain that this child has no value?"
-
"If this Human, who is nothing, takes on absolute value, then this right, which is merely a right to dispose of my own person, becomes a right to violate the first Human Right!"
To consider only the Human who exists today:
Today, there is only an embryo >
My right = a right over an embryo.
The embryo has no Right >My right violates no Right.
To also consider the Human who is yet to come:
Tomorrow, there is a Human >
My right = a right over a Human.
The Human to come has the Right to exist > My right violates his/her Right
The Error makes us believe in the innocence of the act (and consequently in the existence of a right to commit the act).
The Exit from Error reveals the harm done to the Human (and therefore the nonexistence of that right to harm the Human).
"The Error only sees the destruction of the embryo; the Exit from Error perceives the violation of Right"
-
# The reality of a law : Absolute power over others.
"Because it is within my power to say: “this one will be and live, this other one will not be and will not live !”, am I not placing my right above his person?"
"The woman who decides to have an abortion does not postpone the arrival of the child she decides not to have. She only postpones having a child to another day. But, this child, she puts a cross on it. She will never have this child. When she becomes a mother, she will become the mother of another child. The right to abort is thus nothing more than saying: "this child will be here tomorrow and this other child will not be here tomorrow!".
O! This right, formulated in this way, takes a very particular form. It seems to refer to this Absolute power that some have granted themselves over others and which has been the cause of the worst human dramas in the History of Humanity. With this 'right', have we not once again succumbed to the temptation of taking ourselves for a deity, a sort of evil demiurge, who sets his condemnations by deciding who will rise tomorrow in the light of day and who will be denied it?
Indeed, what is the difference between this power and the power of those heads of state who, with one pencil stroke, get rid of all those listed as a threat to the "welfare" of the state? Doesn't this right also consist in getting rid of whoever is considered a threat to our own 'well-being'?
Existences intersect, intermingle, influence each other and we have always been tempted by this desire to control the existence of others, to keep those who meet the criteria and to eliminate those who pose a problem, those whose existence is an obstacle to our own existence. We have always felt the desire to decide whether or not someone else will be here tomorrow. This is how we are reassured, if we know that we will not find tomorrow on our path the one whose existence could disturb the tranquillity of our own existence : the political agitator, the enemy, the rival, the troublemaker, etc. And today, have we not once again succumbed to this temptation by attributing to ourselves the Power to decide whether or not we will find tomorrow on our path the one who could disturb the tranquillity of our existence: ... our own child?
'You, you ll be here tomorrow! But you, you will not!'; these words are the words that all those heads of state silently pronounced when studying the report of their secret police. And aren't these words the same words that are still silently uttered today by every citizen deciding whether or not to use the "right" to abortion ?
"'I keep this child or i don't keep it!'; if it turns out that the one to whom these words are addressed should be considered, we have given ourselves absolute power over this person!"
I will be reassured, I will be told that this child on whom I exercise this Power does not exist when I decide to deprive him of being. Except that simple and cold logic intervenes, catches up with us and answers us : the one we decide whether or not he or she will be there tomorrow is never the one who exists at the moment we make this decision, but always the one who at that moment is to come ! »
"The 'right to self-determination' no longer exists if it is understood that this 'right' corresponds to the right to dispose of others"
The embryo of the present moment corresponds to the existence of a young woman placed on the moment to come.
And the right we have is the power to make this young woman disappear.
Tomorrow, when we arrive at this moment, at the end of this pier, we will find no one.
The power that this right gives us over this person is absolute power. This is how this case is resolved : if this person is worthless, this right is innocent (100 x 0 = 0). On the contrary, if this person is to be considered, then we have given ourselves the absolute power over someone, the most precious of entities. We have placed in our hands the most terrible of powers (100 x 1 = 100).
Such is the particularity of this case, depending on the consideration given to this Human, the innocent act becomes the worst human drama. That is why we must be sure to answer correctly the first question, the one put forward by this site: Is the one to come really worthless?
-
# A legitimate right, an illegitimate right.
"I have an abortion because I don't want this child to be here tomorrow; but the first wish that I express for others is that they are here tomorrow! Does this make sense?"
"There is the right to abort, a right that corresponds to the right recognised to the woman to deprive the child to come of being, and there is the newly identified right, the Right recognised to the child to come to be. These two rights concern the one who is to come and the fact for him to be, but they express opposite dispositions towards him, one offering the power to dispose of him while the other obliges to respect him. These two rights are the negation of each other and the question is then which one is the legitimate right and which one is the illegitimate right, which one is the one to be recognised and which one is the one that cannot be recognised?
These two rights come from two contradictory wills expressed towards the Human to come. Two wills and therefore two different considerations of this Human ; in order to know which of these two rights is the right one, it is necessary to know which of these two considerations is the right one, it is necessary to know if this man is to be considered or not ?
"These two rights, which are expressed in the same terms, are opposed to each other! Answer: which is the right one?"
We had never before thought to ask ourselves about this Human, since he was not real, how could he be considered? But today we are asked: "Who is the one you consider when you say you want this girl to be here tomorrow? This question brings us to the moment to come, it puts us in front of the one who is to come. This Human whom we had never thought of considering then presents itself differently, it ceases to be a vague dream, a vague idea, we realise on the contrary that he too is this reality that we consider in every Human. However, not far from this young woman, there is another one who is also dancing and enjoying herself at her side in this moment to come. Our hand, always so ready to touch everything around her, suddenly holds back. We tell ourselves that we cannot go that far, enter those lands, extinguish all that. You tell yourself that you don't have the right to do so. You tell yourself that there is another right there, the right of this other young woman, dancing and having fun in this bar, and that this right contradicts, cancels, invalidates the right that you had always thought you had over her.
There are these two rights, the presently recognised and the newly identified, both of which concern the Human to come, except that they do not have the same provisions for him. The first of these two rights reduces this Human to being only an object of law whereas the other right makes him a subject of law. There is a conflict between two rights which reflects a conflict between two distinct and opposing considerations of this Human. The question then is which of these two Rights is right and which is wrong ? That is, which of these two considerations of this Human is the good one and which is the bad one ? The one giving him no value or the one giving him absolute value? And today we realise that we have always been wrong in attributing no consideration to this Human. We realise today that we have always been wrong in acting as if he had no rights.
O ! We had never realised it before, but within the expression of the desire for someone else to be here tomorrow lies a complete contestation, a denial of another desire, the expressed intention to terminate a pregnancy, the expressed intention to prevent the future child of being ! The woman (or rather the man behind her) seeks to terminate a pregnancy because she/he does not want the child to which it is destined to lead ! However, the act of terminating a pregnancy is voluntary precisely because we have not fully comprehended who the true subject of our desire is when we express the wish for another person to exist tomorrow! This right to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy can only be voluntary because we have not understood that we must consider, that we must desire, the one whom we are given the 'right' not to desire"
"There is a conflict between two Wills with the same subject! Which one is the right one? Which one validates the resulting Law?"
"Why do I reach out my hand to the one you are tomorrow (girl case) when I don't reach out my hand to the one it is tomorrow (embryo case)?"
"Abortion laws enshrine an illegitimate will!"
-
# The Right i recognise in her invalidates the right that the law recognises in me.
"Any pregnant girl who has doubts is often told that she can go through with it, that she has the right to do so. At least, until today, she believed she had that right because no other right, rule, or law had been identified to oppose it. However, a new Right has emerged today. This Right does not come from the written law, but from the depths of our beings, it is inscribed in each of us. It's our Sensibility toward others that dictates it to us. It's our Sensibility for others that reveals the existence of this unwritten right, challenging the existence of the right inscribed in the body of established rules.
The mere existence of a right does not automatically legitimise our exercise of that right. If, deep within our inner selves, another law, another rule—deeper and more just—stands in opposition, then the superiority of the understood law prevails over the written law. This signifies the ascendancy of the Right inscribed within each of us over the rights penned on paper.
In Rome, the organisation of games in which the death of others was made a spectacle was legally recognised. The lives of men were played with and it was a recognised right. Many human tragedies were written down on the paper of the law; it was even because they were written down on the paper of the law that these tragedies could be committed. Many of the inhuman rights have been "our rights"; and because they were "our rights", did that give us the right to exercise them?
Because we had the right to participate in these games, did we have to go to these games? Wasn't there a law buried within us, ordering us not to do anything with this right? This law was that voice full of humanity which, shouting from the depths of our being, was opposed to someone going to his death for the entertainment of the multitude.
"Is there not a law buried within us that commands us to do nothing with this right?"
The true parliament is within us, and its law is above human laws, above all human laws. No matter what the written law is, it is this law that comes from the desire inscribed in me to respect others, the innocent other, that prevails. The law can therefore recognise my right to put a cross on this child whose arrival will change my life; I know which law I have to obey!
Today, the only Right that has authority over me, the only Right that I am obliged to respect, is the Right that I recognise for my child to be here tomorrow and to play in this park, to run in this meadow, to walk along this path that is the path of his life"
"The Right I recognise for this child is superior to the right that the law recognises for me"
"By expressing the desire for others to be here tomorrow, I reject my right to deprive my child of being there tomorrow!"
"My Will = Her Right!
Her right opposes my right;
my Will opposes my right!"
"The 'right to control my body' is a false right, the result of an error, of a Lie, seeking to enter within me to dispose of my child; and I say 'no' to that right because I say 'yes' to my child!"
The human Will and the law are not supposed to be in opposition. On the contrary, in our democratic systems, the rule is that the law reflects the expression of the popular will. Today, by embracing this consideration for the Human who is yet to come, this principle is perfectly respected: any law protecting the embryo becomes an expression of the general will and, more importantly, an expression of the will of each individual. Since everyone expresses the desire to safeguard the presence of others tomorrow, they can only support any law that protects this presence. With this new understanding of the Human to be protected, any law safeguarding the embryo no longer remains a matter of religious 'conviction' expressed by some and imposed on others; it transforms into a law rooted in our Sensible expression for others and in our logical deduction, meaning shared by all and willingly adhered to by each individual.
Today, in accordance with the Will of each individual, Justice and Law are called upon to recognise the Right to exist of the one who is yet to come and to revoke any provisions that contradict this Right.
"Since everyone desires the presence of others tomorrow, everyone should be willing to endorse and uphold any law that safeguards this presence"
"The Parliament must rule:
This Human is to be protected >
Duty to preserve it (the embryo)!"
"My freedom ends where the right of the One to come begins!"
There is a fundamental principle of Law which is the transposition in Law of the principle of equality between Humans : The Right of each one stops where the Right of others begins (Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others / French Declaration of Human Rights, august 26, 1789, art 4).
The presented thought reveals a Right whose existence had never been supposed before. This new Right, like any Right recognised for others, obligates us, meaning that it restricts our scope of action, limits our power of intervention, and constrains our... freedom. The following passage presents some reactions to this curtailment of freedom resulting from the emergence of this new Right. It is a curtailment of freedom that we do not endure, but one that we welcome, because deep down, each of us can only want to respect the foremost of the Human Rights to acknowledge.
"Would this choice that is mine not have touched anyone knowing that he would not be here today?"
"Offer me this "freedom to choose", and I reply that my choice is made, I choose the Human !"
On this page, an act was mentioned, but it was mentioned before it was committed. It would also be possible to talk about this act after it has been committed. The Human who was at the time of the act to come is then the one who, following the act, is not here today. The following page is about this Human who is the victim of the violation of the Right to be, and to designate him, a term is created: "the Absent".
> IIIB S
"When I kiss you, I am not only embracing the person you are today. I am embracing, more broadly, what I desire for you: that you may live your life, that you may be there tomorrow. I am embracing your existence tomorrow, I am embracing the person you are destined to become tomorrow.
And therefore, as I embrace your presence tomorrow, should I not also embrace the presence of your sister tomorrow? And as a testament to this desire, should I not also embrace the embryo she is today and that is growing within me?"
.jpg)
"You are here today because yesterday I had accepted you. And even if the embryo developing inside me today doesn't seem to be someone, I am already proud today to say tomorrow to your little sister or brother : 'Yesterday, when you were only a few cells, I had accepted you!'"
In the background, the tree of Knowledge and in the foreground, 4 people, one of whom holds the forbidden fruit in his hands. This one refers to the parliamentarian, the one who initiated the law, the one who said that it was possible to do it, that there was nothing wrong with doing it. The law seemed good to him, so he took it, he bit into it. Except that legalizing the destruction of the embryo, he legitimised, gave authority, to the act of depriving the child to come of being. He has validated, confirmed, implanted in everyone's mind the idea that this practice is innocent! Emerging from the Cave and entering the garden of the Just Right, he discovers today that he has been fooled, he discovers that the Error has played on him, he discovers that he has participated in the Lie by making Humanity believe that it could dispose of the one it had to consider above all others : our own children. He thought he was not committing anything reprehensible, he only saw the pile of cells. He realised - too late, always too late like Epimetheus opening the box - that he had brought into the world under the soft mask of the recognised right - because to enter, you must be masked - the violation of the first of the Human Rights.
