Although it does not recognise the right to live for the conceived child which cannot be considered as a person in the sense of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Strasbourg Court decree does not really put an end to the debate for penal protection of the child inasmuch as a large amount of appreciation is left to each State. It remains that the rulings by the Court of Appeals pronounced in 1999, 2001 and 2002, which break a precedent which has lasted for more than a century, now refuse to apply penal law to third parties, who by their unintentional fault, cause the death of an unborn child, irrespective of its stage of development. Thus, after depenalising abortions, the doctrines of our theologians and lawyers, who for 2000 years have considered that a conceived child is a human being, and as such its life should be protected by penal law.
The debate about the legal personality of the foetus is specious because manslaughter has always been considered as the destruction of a human life. Since the penal punishment marks society's disapproval and helps parents to complete their mourning, the latter will now only receive compensation of a small amount for the moral wrong

The refusal to provide penal protection for the life of an unborn child in the event of a mortal accident, can be explained, in my opinion, by motives which are more ideological than legal. The current situation conforms to the wishes of the abortion lobby which rejects any value being given to the human life of a child (which is incidentally refuted by our social legislation which is very favourable towards it). The objective is to better establish and generalise abortions. Gynaecologists, obstetricians and midwives are now protected from any penal offence when, through their fault, they cause the death of a foetus. These medical professionals would even benefit from its death if they happen to damage it. Indeed, in such case they are liable to conviction for accidental injury or manslaughter if the unborn child survives its injuries and dies of their consequences. Similarly, a careless motorist will remain unpunished if he is "lucky" enough to kill the child instantly. The penal code established by the current precedent, which is both socially and humanly unacceptable, leads to inconsistent and illogical solutions.

There can be no possible confusion between a pregnancy termination which is desired by the mother, and the fact that a third party causes the death of a child whose birth was hoped for.
Remember that abortions are only totally depenalised on the part of the mother. Third parties who terminate a pregnancy illegally, or who provide the means of abortion to the mother, expose themselves to penal action.
The penal protection of the life of a foetus, would so it seems, trouble the conscience of women who abort, but such protection has coexisted for a quarter of a century with the application of the law on abortions and has never prevented any women from aborting.
Today, all the talk is about the freedom to abort, which is not under any threat. But there is another freedom, which is never mentioned, and which is just as respectable, and that is the freedom to procreate. Should not the distress of the mother deprived of her wanted child be taken into account just as much as that of a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy ?

The situation is currently frozen. One can only admit that the powers that be, who are not even prepared to provide penal protection for pregnant women in the event of unintended pregnancy termination, as is applied in Italy or Spain, have chosen to align on the position of the Court of Appeals. It seems to me that it was up to the national representation to conclude the debate.
The principle established by article 16 of the civil code – a public order text which states that "the law guarantees respect for human beings from the very beginnings of life" is now devoid of any substance. And one can only be astounded that in France, the life of a domestic pet, which is an object, can be provided with penal protection against attacks through carelessness (article R651-3 of the penal code) whereas that of the unborn child, even on the threshold of its birth, remains unprotected.
What, therefore can this child be ? A piece of waste, a destructible object without any human destiny ?
Finally, the current situation reveals the contradictions in our society where scientific progress has identified the importance of foetal life and where the unborn child enjoys enhanced recognition on the family, social and sanitary levels, but is totally ignored by penal law. The choice of precedent which bears no respect for life forces onto all society and first and foremost on all women, the result of a philosophy supported only by some. The very credibility of the law does not gain anything, nor does tolerance, which is the cement of a democratic society.