punishing the perpetrator and protecting the victim are both important. But you shouldn't force someone to continue with a pregnancy caused by rape or incest, which can add more physical and psychological trauma to the victim. allowing abortion in these cases is not the same as supporting eugenics, bc the decision is based on the survivors bodily autonomy and circumstances.

Abortion rights are mainly about bodily autonomy and personal choice, not eugenics. For victims of rape or incest, forcing someone to continue a pregnancy can add more trauma from a crime they did not choose. Supporters of abortion rights argue that the government should not force a person to go through pregnancy against their will. They also argue that individual abortion decisions are different from government-controlled eugenics policies.

The decision to carry and care for a child should not be burdened on the victim who was sexually assaulted. Everyone should have the right to decide what they should do with their body and make decisions that will impact their entire future

RAPE AND INCEST ARE HORRIFIC CRIMES THAT DO UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE VICTIMS. DEMANDING THAT SUCH A VICTIM CARRY THE CHILD THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM SAID CRIME IS INHUMANE. IT IS HER CHOICE, AND NO ONE ELSE'S, WHETHER SHE WILL CARRY THAT CHILD OR NOT.

If a girl is raped and she is put in the position to either abort or keep the child, that is her decision as the ultimate victim in the situation. The unborn child is not a victim, it is not even alive yet, we cannot prioritize that life when the life of the actual living victim could be in danger if she is not in the position to properly care or give birth to the child. Moreover, aborting infants with disabilities is not an attempt to form eugenics, deciding to abort a child with disabilities requires a lot of consideration of one's individual resources and abilities. Knowingly bringing a child with disabilities into the world, knowing that you will not be able to willingly face the adversities that come with it, is not the best choice for both the mother and the child.

Ultimately, there is no situation in which the government should be making deeply personal medical decisions for individuals. Pregnancy involves complex circumstances that are best evaluated by the pregnant person and their doctor, not lawmakers.

The language in this argument is also misleading. Abortions are not performed on infants, and prenatal diagnoses are often based on probabilities and medical judgment rather than absolute certainty.

If the government is going to require people to carry pregnancies to term, it should also ensure that both parents are legally and financially responsible…  Read more for the child. In addition, there should be guaranteed access to healthcare, childcare, food assistance, housing support, addiction treatment, and other social services so that no parent or child is left vulnerable to homelessness, food insecurity, or inadequate care.

Abortion is not punishment to a fetus. It can be argued it’s punishment for the mother, because abortions are difficult emotionally and physically. But it would also be punishment for a woman to carry and deliver her assailants baby, if she doesn’t want to. No human should be forced to do something with their body if they don’t want to.

Even if conception marks the beginning of life, Constitutional rights and civil liberties do not apply until birth. With this being the case, the mother’s right to medical care (i.e an abortion) shall not, and cannot, be impeded.

I wouldnt want my mother have me if I wasn't an act she consented on, I also wouldn't want to live my life knowing I was a rape baby

The eugenics argument doesn't hold up because not all children conceived by rape are aborted, nor do all women who are pregnant from rape wish to abort the child.
Most importantly, the right to bodily autonomy is the bedrock of individual humanity. A woman's right to bodily autonomy should not be infringed upon, under any circumstances.

I believe that this whole take on "making the child another victim" is insane. We could use that same argument to justify forcing a child to live out their life fully knowing that they are a direct result of a rape or an incest case. Would this not also make them a victim? The child would have to relive that fact every day, in school, at home, etc, but the mother (the actual victim of rape or incest) would also have to face that same fact every day. Not only would the child's mental health be absolutely destroyed. But imagine the mother's. The worst event of her life has…  Read more now become a replayed scene day in and day out that she cannot escape. The last thing a rape victim needs is a reminder that they are a rape victim, and on top of that, you are going to burden her with having to take on the responsibility of said child for decades to come. A rape or incest victim will always have ever-living trauma; the least we can do for them is stop at that one event.

abortion for victims of sexual crime are not only necessary, but mandatory. The amount of children who could go into an already overwhelmed foster care system, and experience more trauma than the mother who has to give the child that they most likely do want up.

The "child" in question isn't even aware that it exists until long after birth, and regardless of how "sacred" the child may be considered by others, it is ultimately up to the mother to decide what to do.

Rape and incest are disgusting things that could happen to anyone, not just women. A child should not have to suffer the disabilities, illnesses or even death in labor due to something that was out of the victims control. Any baby that would be coming out of rape or incest should be aborted or kept at the victims choice. This is the problem that no one minds their business it should be up to the woman to decide to keep the baby or not, even if she does and the baby comes out sick they should have something covered to prevent payment for something out of the mothers control. All in all it is up to women specifically the one who realized they are pregnant to decide what they will like to do end of discussion

Getting a abortion after being raped is not harming the child, it will harm the mother of the child who will lose a lot from taking care of them. Instead of banning abortions that are used against down syndrome. There should be information and financial help for raising a child with a disibility.

Genocide? Most parents aren't qualified for a single child, much less one with disabilities. Give the family a chance to flourish, one which isn't existing with the child in question.

I agree, I think the perpetrator should be punished, but what if the woman is not fit to give birth? Because there are cases where children will get raped either by their own family member or by another man and get pregnant. No child should be giving birth.