Replies

It’s not a “straw man” argument, since you specifically set up the possibility of the child conceived through rape carrying its father’s “crime genes” as a reason to justify killing that child. [...] If you want to argue the morality of killing a child conceived by rape on the basis of the circumstance of its conception, fine. Stick with that argument, and don’t introduce factors which, in fact, lead to the “scientific” justification for killing kids that were not involved in the crime in any role.

I have never argued that those rape victims who wish to keep their babies should be forced to abort, let alone that society should go around killing all children of criminals, including subsequent generations, pre- and post-birth. That's the straw man, and it's a big one. The question was whether those rape victims who become unwilling mothers should be allowed to abort or prevented from aborting. The "crime gene" aspect was placed on the table only for the purpose of deciding that particular question, and none other.

Then leave it out. The idea that killing a child conceived by rape is okay because of the highly speculative possibility that the child carries some "crime gene" really does open up other doors, whether you want to accept that or not. It also sounds like a crutch. If you are arguing that, morally, it is acceptable for a woman to kill her child who was conceived by rape, just leave it at that. Bringing in the hypothetical of ridding the population of a child carrying a "crime gene" suggests that you are not completely comfortable with the morality of allowing a woman to abort her rape-conceived child, and you are looking for other ways to rationalize it. You should be able to argue your position on the facts and morality of the rape itself.