I will now develop the question I have proposed with the aim of creating a discussion that I hope will be of interest to you.

Some time ago, while doing some work for the University, I read an article related to the question raised and I thought it would be interesting to share it:

The human being is not a person. Instead, the person is a human being.

The difference is that a human is an animal and a person is an individual who has consciousness and the ability to reason. Therefore, a baby is not a person, but a potential human, since it has no consciousness. Personally, I agree with that. Also, the article I read says that an individual in a vegetable state is not a person, because it does not reason, this is when you start talking about euthanasia as a dignified death. Therefore, someone could decide what to do with that individual, so do you have the right to decide someone's fate just because they can't reason or have no conscience? From cases that I have heard on television, how people in a coma and their relatives decided to end the life of the individual in question or even by order of a judge, in my opinion, it is a yes, if you can decide the fate of someone who can not reason or have no conscience; and not only in individuals in a vegetable state or babies, also in individuals with biological ‘failures’, such as Down syndrome, dwarfism or autism, they are trying to eliminate these ‘failures’ through science by modifying genetics, are they trying to eliminate these individuals? On the one hand I think yes because of the person's evil and on the other hand no, I want to believe no, because of having ‘faith in humanity’.

From the news I have heard and articles I have read, I think that individuals who have more power than others are taking advantage, controlling others; lengthening and shortening the life line and even their own life line. Dystanasia, euthanasia and eugenics are already out of control. Where are values such as love and dignity, and ethics? In my opinion, this would nullify Article 10 of the Spanish Constitution under Fundamental Rights and Duties.

There are many laws that regulate and give priority to life, but discrepancies can be found in them. Beyond the laws, it is really people who condition the lives of others, as in the case of abortion. In this case, I would like to emphasise that this action is not carried out on a baby, but on an embryo that does not feel pain and has no conscience, therefore, it can choose its destiny; To reinforce this idea, according to the Civil Code in the section on the right of the person, specifically in article 30, one has the right to life from the moment a baby is born, but of course, this right speaks of the life of humans, not of persons, therefore, a baby is not a person, since, I repeat, it has no conscience. Should laws be adapted to people and not to humans?