From one body to another, from one habitat to another, what can we say about these "human bodies" whose biological migration is stopped by human decision?
Without wishing to enter into a moral discussion, it seems important to us, for an organisation such as Josefa which approaches the migratory phenomenon as the foundation of our humanity, to question ourselves with the greatest respect for all those "lives" (if not human, in the sense of certain so-called ethical jurisdictions, at least engaged in a biological process) whose migratory journey is irremediably stopped a few weeks from being born to the life that every human being, not to say every living being, experiences.
Here again, without wishing to disrespect anyone in their migration (in the traditional sense of the term), is it not a paradox that we value the life of a "migrant" when it is lost, but not that of the millions of migrating biological lives when they are aborted?
Arguing about the legitimacy of this or that biopolicy which grants this right to put an end to the migration towards a biological life of this or that child is not at all the issue; the focus should quite simply be: "Why?".
Why, in one case, it seems that most of us agree on this possibility/freedom to stop a biological process that has been started, while, globally, in another case, the same people tend to not agree (and quite legitimately) with the fact that another (spatial/geographical) migration is dramatically thwarted with many lives lost or destroyed?
Isn't this a very difficult paradox to grasp in relation to the "price of a life" in order to access the Habitat that is our humanity?
Without wanting to reopen books that seem to be definitively closed in the name of "human freedom", which thus has the capacity to interfere with and abort a future migration, it is possible to ask another fundamental question about our migrations. Who (individually or collectively) has the "right" to decide whether the migration of a Life can go ahead or be "aborted"?