This essay relates the struggle to eradicate world hunger to the battle over abortion. It criticizes the Dworkin’s defense of the legality of abortion, by presenting arguments those in both sides of the abortion debate (pro-election and pro-life) to spend their time and resources in the fight against world hunger instead of the abortion battle, in which both sides could work together. In the fight over whether and to what extent abortions should be legal, great expenditures of effort are merely neutralizing each other. Fighting world hunger is much less wasteful, and less costly for civil harmony and for the standing of morality in our culture. Various counter-arguments invoking considerations of cost-effectiveness, or the distinctions between doing and letting happen or between compatriots and foreigners can be refuted.