A 14-year-old virgin walks through a park, in broad daylight. Suddenly, she is grabbed by a drug-crazed gang of youths, dragged into bushes and repeatedly raped. A few weeks later, she finds that she is with child. This fact is made worse by the fact that the gang of youths were a different race and colour from her – they were white.
Across town, a young actress gets stoned at a party and seduces a boy in a spare bedroom. The following evening, she goes to take her pill – then discovers she forgot to take yesterday’s. She takes BOTH and hopes for the best. After a couple of weeks, she discovers her hopes were unfulfilled – she too is pregnant. Then her agent rings up and tells her that “breakthrough role” is HERS. Filming will begin in eight months.
So which of these girls “deserves” an abortion?
Pro-Lifers would say NEITHER. Life begins at conception – and to terminate either would be murder. After all, both girls have the option of giving up their baby for adoption.
While Pro-Choicers would say BOTH. For them, life begins when the baby draws its first breath. The virgin has suffered enough – without being reminded of the “incident” every time she sees her child. And as for the bimbo actress – it’s HER body.
Of course, PRACTICAL people would point out that the law HAS to allow both to terminate – if it didn’t, the actress would just go on a “skiing” holiday to Switzerland and quietly book into a private hospital – while the young girl would be forced to seek out a “back-street” abortionist – who could leave her sterile – or DEAD.
But throughout the discussion, NO-ONE would consider the MEDICS – whose Hippocratic Oath demands they “do no harm”. Performing abortions isn’t exactly what THEY signed up for, is it?
(Incidentally, my Evil Twin, Damien, has his own take on this one – which can be found at http://damienatloppers.wordpress.com/)