(Learning to consider the one who is not here today)
Innocentem non condemnari (an innocent person should not be condemned):
In the aftermath of yesterday's accident, one laments that this child is not here today. In the aftermath of yesterday's abortion, another is thankful that this child is not here today.
There is an inconsistency between these two reactions regarding the absence of a child today. Inconsistency implies error, and everyone knows where the incorrect reaction lies.
"The act should not be judged by asking whether someone was killed yesterday, but by observing that someone is missing of being here today"
Learning to consider the Human destined to exist means learning to view differently the absence of this child today due to the abortion performed yesterday.
The following section transposes this new consideration given to the one who, due to the act committed yesterday, is not present today. The following section describes this new view on the one who can be called the "Absent":
"In the aftermath of yesterday's accident, who is he mourning for?"
"Only that embryo existed yesterday, and by terminating it, I believed I had only inflicted harm upon that embryo. Only to that embryo and nothing more. Certainly not to someone! That's what I had always told myself.
However, yesterday, a father lost his daughter in an accident. And, what are the words of this father today? More than once, I have heard him sigh alone in his room: 'Why aren't you here! Why aren't you here!'. What does the father grieve in the aftermath of this accident? The absence of his daughter today. But, this daughter who is missing today, who is absent today: who is she?
This daughter who is not here today close to her father, is she the girl who was found dead on the side of the road yesterday, or the young woman that this girl would have become today if this accident had not occurred yesterday? Everybody knows the answer: this daughter who is missing today is the one who, at the time of the accident, did not exist yet, the one who was meant to come in the future.
The drama does not lie in in what happened yesterday, the one you saw yesterday, dead on the side of the road, the drama lies in what is not happening today, in the one you do not see today, living his life beside you!
This father thus responds to the understanding that has always been mine regarding the victim of such an act. He states that the victim of this accident is not limited to the individual who existed at the time of the act and was killed by it. He asserts that the victim of this accident also is the person who did not yet exist at the time of the act, that person who at that moment was destined to exist, and whom this accident will have deprived for ever of existence!
So, what can I say after yesterday's act? Should I continue to believe that the victim of my act lies solely in this embryo that I allowed myself to terminate? Should I not rather, like this father, conceive that the victim of this act is primarily this child who has been deprived of existence, this child who, with every passing day, would have been here but is not, this child who, with every passing day, is... absent?"
"Before, I said that I had only terminated an embryo; now I say I have brought forth an Absent!"
What do those tears streaming down your face convey? What legal information do they conceal? Why are you shedding them? What for are you crying? Who are you crying for?
Are they dedicated to the one who was killed yesterday or to the Absent one today? Are they for the one who existed yesterday or for the one who does not exist today?
"This child did not have to exist yesterday to be a victim of a violation of his Right; his right was violated simply because he does not exist today."
To violate someone's right to be here tomorrow is to make that someone will not be here tomorrow, it is to make that someone will be absent tomorrow. The Absent (the one who yesterday was to come and who misses being there today) is characteristic of the violation of the Right to be here tomorrow:
Someone is destined to exist, ...
... and when tomorrow arrives, that someone will be here.
Someone is destined to exist, ...
... and when the moment arrives, that someone will not be here, he/she will not exist, there will be an Absent.
The harm to Human, the diminution of the human condition appears clearly: Someone would be, but that someone is not.
Instead of someone, there is no one! A Human reduced to nonexistence, reduced to being nothing.
To convey the idea that there is no one, but that there should be someone, to signify the absence of someone because he/she has been deprived of being, it was decided to use the symbol: "...".
The one who should exist but does not is referred to as the Absent. This symbol represents the presence of an Absent.
"Today, there is not "no one"; today, there is an Absent!"
This is the story of two chairs, both empty. One is, and it's normal that it is, as it was never intended for anyone to be on that chair. The other, however, is empty, but it's not normal for it to be so. It was intended for someone to be on that chair, but an event occurred yesterday that decided no one would be on that chair. What do we see on both sides? Nothing. More precisely, two chairs and no one, neither on one nor the other.
There are two chairs, both empty, two perfectly identical images. However, these two chairs are only identical in what they appear to be, in the image they project, because these same two empty chairs, however similar they may seem, conceal a very different reality. There is an empty chair that is just an empty chair, and an empty chair that reflects an absence. The absence of someone, the absence of this child whom the act committed yesterday deprived of being seated on this chair today.
Of these chairs, is there at least one that was never intended for anyone to sit in?
This is the story of two chairs, both empty, two chairs with no one on them, and I look at these same two empty chairs very differently. I regard the first one with a calm mind, knowing that it's normal for it to be empty, while I regard the other one with a heavy heart, knowing to perceive hidden behind this empty chair, the child who was denied the Right to be there today, seated on this chair.
-
"Considering the child that can only be imagined as a reality that should have been"
"Yesterday I committed this act, and today a child is not here. I have already tried to imagine this child. I have wondered what he would have looked like, who he would have been. However, when I imagined him, I never felt anything special. He was only the one I had chosen not to have, the one I had decided not to make a reality ! Nothing more. He had always been a mere possibility that I had chosen not to pursue.
However, there was an accident, and a father lost his daughter in that accident. What did this father tell us the other day about this child who is not with him today?
This father told us how keenly he still feels the absence of his daughter years after the accident. He mentioned how often he wonders what she would have looked like. He also shared that he regularly envisions her by his side, living with him. He told us that he had given her a face, the one he already knew, a little different, a more adult one. He said he had given her a face, one he already knew, albeit slightly different, more mature. He mentioned that he frequently seeks her advice on what to do, and she always responds with great wisdom. Cheerfully, he added, 'She is beautiful! She is beautiful! A well-educated, helpful, loving young woman,' but at that last word, he abruptly stopped. The light that had sparkled in his eyes suddenly faded. He became lost in thought, distant. After a brief moment, he turned to us, revealing sad eyes, and exclaimed sharply, 'But, no! But, no! Look! Where is this beautiful young woman? She's not here! She doesn't exist! She's just a fleeting dream, a ghost in my thoughts!' Then, he began to sob.
Do you see the difference between this father's words and mine? What was this father saying about this child that he could only imagine today? Was he saying that this accident had only deprived his daughter of becoming a reality today? Not at all! On the contrary, he he lamented the fact that this young woman is not a reality today! He lamented the fact that instead of being a reality today, she is merely a fleeting dream in his thoughts!
"Depending on the extent of our consideration, the same Human that we "had just prevented from becoming a reality" transforms into "a reality that we have deprived of existence"
So what should I say about this child who is also not here with me today? Should I continue to think that he refers only to the one who could have been if I had not made that choice? Should I continue to look at it as a mere eventuality that I have decided not to make a reality? Should I not rather, as this father does, deplore the fact that my child is not here today, very real, at my side? Should I not lament that instead of being a reality today, my child has been reduced to being nothing but a vain dream in my thoughts?"
The new consideration to be given to the one who is not here today due to the act committed yesterday, is first reflected in the words:
The one who was merely "an image in our thoughts, deprived of becoming a reality today" becomes "a reality that should have been here today, but has been reduced to nothing more than an image in our thoughts".
"In the aftermath of a conflict, when you look around, there are those who are there and those who are absent"
# Today, there are still some absents.
"Is yesterday's society really so different from the present one? People were missing from the streets yesterday, and they are still absent today. The act that led to this outcome was legal yesterday, and it remains legal today. Nothing has changed. The times haven't changed; even today, we are surrounded by all these absent presences, all these presences left to the imagination. Just like yesterday, today we are still surrounded by these lingering specters, which continue to remind us of the tragedy of the acts committed yesterday"
In squares, on station platforms, in schoolyards, those who can see beyond the false appearances of a peaceful society, those who can perceive the reality concealed behind the laughter and joy surrounding them, ponder the same question, one that their ancestors asked during 'darker' times:
"How many are missing?"
"What would have become of this million of children (...)? Philosophers, artists, great scientists or simply skilled craftsmen or family mothers?"
This page is about the violation of the first of the Rights and the Victim of this violation: the Absent. The following text provides a more detailed exposition on the theme of "Harm and the Victim" (victim = entity undergoing the harm). It highlights two essential points for the characterisation of a Right violation: the use of the conditional tense and the role of imagination.
PDFIn the pages of this website, abortion is presented as condemnable because of the Human it deprives of being here tomorrow.
A confusion is then regularly made, thinking that contraception would be just as condemnable as abortion, both practices having the same outcome: to make someone not be here tomorrow. Except that abortion is condemnable not because "it makes someone not be here tomorrow", but because, in order to achieve this objective, "it deprives someone of being here tomorrow".
If these two practices both stem from the concern that a child will not be here tomorrow, they are of a completely different nature. One fulfils this objective innocently, by not depriving anyone of being, while the other, on the contrary, in order to achieve this objective, will deprive the child to come of being.
The following link explains further why it is wrong to confuse these two practices:
There is the reality that exists, and there is the reality that would have been "if...", if the act had not been committed yesterday. It is then necessary to ponder whether the reality that exists is genuinely a reality that could have been chosen, a reality that was possible to choose, and whether the reality that would have been "if..." is not the reality that was meant to be, a reality that was supposed to be protected?
