Las Vegas . . .
December 7, 2021
Abortion is a fundamental issue dividing Democrats from Republicans, or Liberals from Conservatives if you prefer. Pro-Life people claim that aborting a beginning fetus is murder. Abortionists claim that is not the case.
Both sides’ arguments essentially are beside the point in my opinion. They both beg the question. They utterly ignore another issue that bears direct relevance to the question of saving the lives of children.
While unborn fetuses may or may not technically yet be persons, millions of children walking and living on the earth die of wars and starvation caused mostly by political wars created by both Liberals and Conservatives.
Today, a massive number of refugee and potential immigrant children are dying from such wars and starvation. While Pro-Lifers fight to save unborn fetuses whose personhood is debatable, it is undebatable that neither they nor the Abortionists hit the true mark that matters.
If Pro-Lifers really want to save the lives of the largest possible number of children whose personal lives are unquestionably at stake, would it not make far more sense to first focus their efforts on the refugee children caused by wars that they too help finance with their taxes?
If Liberals want to allow what we might consider questionable abortions, or murder, would it not make more sense for them also to focus on saving all the living refugee children whose lives will clearly be lost from the wars and starvation?
It can be argued that trying to save alleged “persons,” who are still fetuses but clearly have no consciousness, is a questionable proposition. However, It can hardly be argued that not comprehensively saving those children dying from wars is justifiable. By either side of the issue.
It strikes me that Pro-Lifers assuming fetuses are persons is a far reach of pseudo logic. It is, however, indisputable that dying refugee children are dying persons. So, is it not logical that both sides should first agree on saving the refugees before arguing over the fetuses?
Personally, I find the Pro-Lifer’s position relative to fetuses questionable. They are righteously almost playing God with a dubiously relevant argument. It is not dubious that the refugee children are persons or that they are indeed dying. It is not dubious that the fetuses remain debatably persons.
Is it a difficult philosophical issue? Yes.
Nonetheless, I think we should first put our money and energy on saving the refugee children caused by wars and political philosophies rather than placing ourselves on either side of what is more accurately a contentious political feud.
Abortion versus Pro-Life is an inaccurate description of a pseudo life-saving question. Its political nature is a clear as the vision one sees through a clean plane of glass. It may seem that the view is valid, but in truth it is as fragile as glass.
Political egos on both sides are involved far more than logical arguments. Religious differences appear to play a greater role than common sense. If both sides would cooperate on avoiding the wars that cause most of the refugee children, I believe their differing gods could figure out the issue of unborn fetuses being persons.