Innocentem non condemnari (an innocent person should not be condemned).
"In the aftermath of yesterday's accident, one laments the absence of his child today. In the aftermath of yesterday's abortion, another is thankful for the absence of his child today. Where does the erroneous reaction lie?"
"The act should not be judged by asking whether someone was killed yesterday, but by observing that someone is missing 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":
"It wasn’t necessary for this child to exist to be a victim; he is a victim simply because he does not exist today"
"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 this father grieve in the aftermath of this accident? The absence of his daughter today. But, this daughter who is absent today: who is she?
This daughter who is not here today is not that little girl who existed yesterday and who was killed by the accident, but the one that this little girl would have become today if this accident had not occurred yesterday. The absent one of today is a young woman, a young woman who yesterday, at the moment of the accident, was destined to be and whom the accident has deprived forever of being.
Herein lies, according to this father, the tragedy of this accident. And herein lies according to this father, the true victim of this act. It is a wounded heart that speaks, and its words, full of pain, reveal a new understanding of the victim of such an act.
What then to think of the act that I committed yesterday? Is the victim of this act only this embryo that existed yesterday and that I decided to kill? Or is it not also this child that I have forever deprived of being, this child who, with each passing day, is at my side... absent?"
"What do those tears streaming down your face say about the victim of this act? What for are you crying? Who are you crying for?
Where does the tragedy lie? Does it lie in what you saw yesterday, someone dead on the side of the road, or in what you don't see today, someone living his life beside you?
And the one who is not here today? Is it the one who existed yesterday or the one who did not yet exist yesterday and was destined to exist"
"Before, I said that I had only terminated an embryo; now I say I have brought forth an Absent!"
To violate someone's Right to be here tomorrow is to ensure this person will not be here tomorrow; it is to cause his or her absence tomorrow.
The absent one (the person who was to come yesterday but who is missing today) is characteristic of the violation of the Right to be here tomorrow:
Someone is destined to exist, ...
..., and when tomorrow arrives, this person will exist"
Someone is destined to exist, ...
... , but when tomorrow arrives, that person will be absent—she will not exist."
The harm to a Human, the diminution of the human condition, is evident: someone would be, but this person 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, and to signify the absence of someone because a person has been deprived of existence, the symbol "..." has been chosen.
The one who should exist but does not is referred to as the Absent. This symbol represents the presence of an Absent.
"One physical reality may conceal two very different legal realities"
This is the story of two empty chairs. One is empty, as expected—it was never meant to be occupied. The other, on the contrary, is empty, but this emptiness is not right. It was meant for someone to sit there, but an event occurred yesterday that determined no one would be in that chair today.
What do we see on both sides? Nothing. More precisely, two chairs, both unoccupied—no one on either one nor the other. Two perfectly identical images. Yet, these two chairs are only identical in appearance, in the image they project. In truth, they hold very different meanings. There is an empty chair that is simply an empty chair. There is an empty chair that embodies an absence—the absence of a child, whose presence was stolen by the act committed yesterday.
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, and today, I look at these same two empty chairs in very different ways. I look at the first with a calm mind, knowing its emptiness is natural. By contrast, I look at the other with a heavy heart, envisioning — behind this empty chair — the child who was denied the right to be here today, seated in it.
-
"Considering the child that can only be imagined as a reality that should have been"
"Yesterday, I committed this act. 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, some years ago, a traffic accident occurred. A father lost his daughter. And the other day, this father told us how the absence of his daughter, years after the accident, was still deeply felt.
He told us that he frequently wonders what his daughter would have looked like and even confessed to us that he regularly imagines her by his side. He told us he had given her a face, the one he already knew, but a little different, a little more adult. He also told us he often talks to her and asks her for advice when he has a choice to make, and that she always answers with great wisdom. He was very enthusiastic when he started talking about her. Upon rising from his seat, he declared with ardent fervor: "She is beautiful! She is beautiful! A young woman of education, compassion, and love", yet abruptly, he fell silent. The joy that was sparkling in his eyes suddenly stopped shining. He became haggard, and after a short moment of reverie, revealing sad eyes, he exclaimed loudly: "But, no! But, no! Look! Where is this beautiful young woman, helpful and loving?". He showed us the living room around him, empty of any presence. "She is not! She does not exist! She is only a vain dream, a ghost, in my thoughts!". Then he started crying.
Do you see the difference between this father's reaction and mine regarding this child that we can only imagine today? Does this father say of this missing child that she is nothing more than an eventuality that this accident has merely deprived today of becoming a reality? Not at all! On the contrary, he expresses deep regret that this young woman — whom he can only imagine — is not a reality today. He mourns the fact that instead of being real, this young woman is today nothing more than a vain dream in his thoughts!
"Depending on the extent of our consideration, the same Human whom 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 whom I also can only imagine, and who is not with me today? Should I continue to see this child as an eventuality I simply chose would not become real ? Or, should I not rather - like this father - see him as a reality that should be, but that I have reduced to be today only a vain dream, a ghost, in my thoughts?"
The new consideration to be given to the one who is absent 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" becomes "a reality reduced to be nothing more than an image in our thoughts".
"In the aftermath of a conflict, when you look around, there are those who remain and those who are absent"
# Today, there are still some absents.
"Is yesterday's society really so different from today's? People were missing from the streets yesterday, and people are still missing from the streets 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 the presence of these absences, all these presences left to the imagination. Just like yesterday, today we are still surrounded by these lingering specters, constantly reminding 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 examines the violation of the first right—the right to exist. The following text further explores the theme of "harm and the victim (the entity experiencing the harm)". It highlights two essential aspects of the violation of a right: 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 : the belief that contraception would be just as condemnable as abortion, since both practices have the same outcome—preventing someone from being here tomorrow. However, abortion is condemnable not because it 'prevents someone from being here tomorrow,' but because, in order to achieve this objective, it 'deprives someone of being here tomorrow.'
While both practices stem from the same worry that a child may be here tomorrow, they are fundamentally different. Contraception achieves this outcome innocently, without depriving anyone of being, while abortion, on the contrary, in order to achieve this objective, will deprive the child to come of being here tomorrow.
The following link explains further why it is wrong to confuse these two practices:
There is the reality that exists, and the reality that would have existed if the act had not been committed yesterday.
We must consider whether the current reality is one that could have been chosen, and whether the alternative reality - the one that would have existed if the act had not been committed yesterday - was not a reality that deserved protection?
