- There is a girl in front of us today, and because she is alive and healthy, we can expect her to be here tomorrow, living a moment of her life.

- This is a fact.

-My question then to you is: Do you want this girl to be here tomorrow, living her moment of life to come?

- And my answer is: I certainly do! This girl has to be here tomorrow and live her moment of life to come!

- For this purpose, you propose to protect - to legally protect - her presence tomorrow?

- Of course !

- Someone is legally protected on the basis of a Right. In the name of what Right would you ensure that this girl will be here tomorrow, living her moment of life to come?
‍
- Quite simply: in the name of her Right to be here tomorrow and to live her moment of life to come.
‍
- So you acknowledge that this girl has a Right to be here tomorrow and to live her moment of life to come.

- Of course!

- I have a second question for you.

- Please.

- Who, more specifically, is the beneficiary of this Right? Is this Right to be here tomorrow recognised for the one this girl is today or for the one she is destined to become tomorrow?

- Again, the answer is self-evident: This Right to be here tomorrow is granted to the one this little girl is destined to become tomorrow.

‍- You have just admitted the legal recognition of the Human to come.

- That's true! I cannot dispute this deduction!

- Currently, only the Human who exists is legally recognised. Do you therefore acknowledge that this legal provision is flawed?

- Certainly! Having nothing to challenge in your intellectual reasoning, which is based on two self-evident questions, I cannot deny that the law has always been misguided, having had too narrow a conception of the Human it ought to protect.

‍- So, what is the correct understanding of Human who should be protected?

- The law should not protect only the Human we are today and who currently exists, but also the one we are destined to become and who does not yet exist.